This is from Education Week.
Critical race theory is an academic concept that is more than 40 years old. The core idea is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.
The basic tenets of critical race theory, or CRT, emerged out of a framework for legal analysis in the late 1970s and early 1980s created by legal scholars Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, among others.
A good example is when, in the 1930s, government officials literally drew lines around areas deemed poor financial risks, often explicitly due to the racial composition of inhabitants. Banks subsequently refused to offer mortgages to Black people in those areas.
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05
That's it. It is true that people go from the idea that racism can be systemic and institutional to other kinds of conclusions, but this part of it seems to be just true. Racism is not just individual, and not a matter of being a bigot. The idea is that just going color-blind is an insufficient response to the problems posed by racism. If you don't use the n-word, you don't support segregation, you have friends in minority groups, etc., you can still be supporting institutionalized racism.
It doesn't seem to be adequate to answer the problem of racism by saying "We're all individuals," while denying racial identity. If all you need for critical race theory is to deny individualist race theory, count me in. Objectionable conclusions might spin out from critical race theory, but this is not a reason to deny the central claim.
145 comments:
[R]acism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.
Totally true statement. Does anyone disagree with this?
From later in the same article:
Critical race theory emerged out of postmodernist thought, which tends to be skeptical of the idea of universal values, objective knowledge, individual merit, Enlightenment rationalism, and liberalism
How many of these things that postmodernists disagree with do you agree with? Do you agree with postmodernists that there is no such thing as objective knowledge? Why should I listen to such a person?
If you don't like a viewpoint but can't or don't want to argue against it, the "best" (i.e. Machievellian) option is to demonise it. Then your supporters will never think about it and so it is neutralised.
"Totally true statement. Does anyone disagree with this?"
Race is embedded in current law to this day. The progressive and right minded people have been working on removing race as a consideration in policy--that is the Republicans since the founding of the party.
The Democratic Party has always been the race obsessed (racist) party. We hope they will become more progressive in being race neutral. They could start by marching on separate public spaces on college campuses divided by race.
From the article:
The basic tenets of critical race theory, or CRT, emerged out of a framework for legal analysis in the late 1970s and early 1980s created by legal scholars Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, among others.
A good example is when, in the 1930s, government officials literally drew lines around areas deemed poor financial risks, often explicitly due to the racial composition of inhabitants. Banks subsequently refused to offer mortgages to Black people in those areas.
There must be contemporary instances, surely?
But during oral arguments, then-justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said: “It’s very hard for me to see how you can have a racial objective but a nonracial means to get there.”
Absolutely! But the objective is actually non-racial, isn't it?
The idea is that just going color-blind is an insufficient response to the problems posed by racism.
That is wrong. For an individual to not be racist, he cannot make distinctions based on skin color, etc. For a policy or institution to achieve the same, it must adopt the same color-blind standard. I don't see how that's controversial.
Now, if the goalposts are shifted from avoiding potential racism in current policies and institutions, to correcting generational repercussions from past racist policies and institutions which were decidedly not color blind, then that's a different matter. I'm unaware of a just solution to that problem, but it is certainly a conversation to have.
If you don't use the n-word, you don't support segregation, you have friends in minority groups, etc., you can still be supporting institutionalized racism.
Devil is in the details there, both in defining what institutional racism looks like and what to do about it when an example can be agreed upon. That's where the disagreement arises. Racism isn't simply what the left says it is.
Racism isn't simply what the left says it is.
When the left says there are no such things as "universal values, objective knowledge, individual merit," then whatever they claim has as much validity as whatever anyone else claims (in their minds). So the goals then are not silly notions like "justice" or "truth" because those don't exist. The goals are to implement desired outcomes. If that takes using the terms "justice" or "truth" to manipulate the rubes, so be it.
I think the best people can do is to expose how differently these people think from what most people take for granted and not be fooled when they claim to be fighting for "justice".
Limited Perspective,
The progressive and right minded people have been working on removing race as a consideration in policy--
Certainly true.
... that is the Republicans since the founding of the party.
Until the 1950s. Since 1970, they have been actively trying to preserve the legacy of racism while removing the name.
Limited Perspective said...
They could start by marching on separate public spaces on college campuses divided by race.
Naturally, the Republican only recognizes one of amendment from the Bill of Rights, and ignores the others.
David Brightly,
There must be contemporary instances, surely?
As an example, due to the choices of where to plant greenery, the streets of Harlem are some 20-30 degrees warmer than some a few blocks west of Central Park.
How many contemporary instances would you like?
bmiller,
How many of these things that postmodernists disagree with do you agree with?
To be skeptical of something is not the same as to to disagree with it.
Do you agree with postmodernists that there is no such thing as objective knowledge?
How can you have knowledge without a person who possesses the knowledge?
Why should I listen to such a person?
No one expects you to listen.
"As an example, due to the choices of where to plant greenery, the streets of Harlem are some 20-30 degrees warmer than some a few blocks west of Central Park."
Goodness, the idiotic things people believe when they become obsessed with race.
I looked for maps of temperatures around NY City: https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/urban-heat-new-york-city
There is roughly a 5 deg variation in temperature around the city. The highest temperatures are (If I know my NYC geography) around JKF airport, naturally. The second highest are in Queens, majority white, second Asian. 20-30 degrees? When its 95 in Manhattan it's 125 in Harlem? I won't even respond to the absurd comment about Republicans.
I googled streets of Harlem are some 20-30 degrees warmer than some a few blocks west of Central Park. The first hit was this article from NYT a year ago, arguing that poorer districts of NYC have fewer trees than richer ones, and are therefore hotter, sometimes considerably and dangerously. The article hints that this situation is the outcome of institutional racism. It quotes an urban ecologist as attributing the heat disparities to
“decades of racist disinvestment,” beginning in the 1930s, during the Great Depression, when the federal government’s Home Owners Loan Corporation drew red lines around predominantly African-American neighborhoods as too risky for home loans.
This looks very much like the example Victor gives from the Education Week article. But in itself it's not an argument. Indeed, a generation ago or less, the issue would, I think, have been framed in terms of class rather than race, and that makes more sense to me, though I'm no Marxist. But twenty-five years ago no one would have spoken of 'institutional classism', just an outcome of economic disparities.
In fairness to NYT their article does mention the Million Trees NYC project, which apparently has just reached its target.
David Brightly,
This looks very much like the example Victor gives from the Education Week article. But in itself it's not an argument. Indeed, a generation ago or less, the issue would, I think, have been framed in terms of class rather than race, and that makes more sense to me, though I'm no Marxist. But twenty-five years ago no one would have spoken of 'institutional classism', just an outcome of economic disparities.
Do you feel issues of race and class are so completely separate?
Regardless, before we continue, are you looking for information to evaluate and digest, or data to refute?
Neither. I am looking for an argument. That's how I understand the word 'theory' in CRT. Now Victor maybe concerned here just to tell us what the core claim of CRT is. That is his title, after all. But he goes on to say, and some commenters seem to agree, that he finds this claim to be true. Fair enough. But without a persuasive argument, count me out.
I believe that the word "theory" in CRT does not refer to a proposition that needs to be proven or disproven, but is rather used in the scientific sense, meaning a model by which disparate data can be understood wholistically.
The first definition of "theory" in Merriam Webster: A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
CRT is basically a worldview on how to frame matters of race. That means you're welcome to disagree with it if you find that parts of it are incoherent, untrue, harmful, etc.
Here is a decent read on the idea, though they get off on a tangent and start whining about Trump toward the end and spend too much time on it.
I'm still hoping someone who accepts the 'theory' might offer a coherent and argued (yes, argued) account of why I should too.
Thanks, Kevin. A nice short introduction.
Victor says,
Objectionable conclusions might spin out from critical race theory, but this is not a reason to deny the central claim.
But why not? If the conclusions are objectionable by virtue of being judged false, yet they follow from the central claim, what are we to make of the central claim?
It strikes me that there is a paradox at the heart of CRT. I'm not referring here to people's grievances, real or imagined, but to the ideas being proposed as explanation for their circumstances. We are told that race is not a naturally occurring thing but a 'social construction'. In which case, in good postmodernist fashion, we can socially deconstruct it. But this does does not appear to be the direction of thought within the CRT movement. Rather, it wants to emphasise racial distinctions, to further encode race into law and policy, and so on. Having lived through the second half of the twentieth century I find this a Very Bad Idea, and that to come to this conclusion one's thinking must have gone horribly astray.
Our situation is rather like that of the people in the Tower of Babel. Denying the natural, genetic basis for race is like denying the inability to understand one another. It's a kind of obstacle that confronts us, but it's an obstacle generated out of the human condition itself.
I don't believe any law or policy, whether by government or corporations, that encodes race as a factor in decision making can inherently be a just policy. A hammer cannot secure a screw even if it looks like it can.
To borrow their use of "intersectionality", if they distinguish people based on skin color or where their ancestors lived in the 1500s and want to help certain groups, then the only just way to do it would be to help in a manner that also helps people whose ancestors came from a different region - in other words, help the poor, which can be objectively measured via income.
People in America were historically treated as black who had the slightest black blood in them. The biological fact about Obama is that he is half white and half black, but sociologically, as an American, he is part of the black community. Race in America has a social meaning that is somewhat distinct from the biological facts.
Yes. Biology gives us visible inheritable differences. It also gives us human psychology---clannishness, fear of the other, etc. When the latter gets to work on the former we get race, the obstacle to be overcome. Were the majority race to have been black, Obama would have been white, no doubt.
"People in America were historically treated as black who had the slightest black blood in them"
Only for those obsessed with race. How many? I really don't know. Just as today, I don't know how many are obsessed with race and how many want to make it unimportant
There were and remain to this day people who think race is unimportant. I'm thinking the people who want to treat others as people have been the majority. The racist and the racially obsessed have always made the loudest noise.
David Brightly,
Neither. I am looking for an argument. That's how I understand the word 'theory' in CRT.
A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.
A scientific argument is defined as people disagreeing about scientific explanations (claims) using empirical data (evidence) to justify their side of the argument. A scientific argument is a process that scientists follow to guide their research activities. Scientists identify weaknesses and limitations in others' arguments, with the ultimate goal of refining and improving scientific explanations and experimental designs. This process is known as evidence-based argumentation.
Assuming this is close to what you mean, evidence abounds and is freely available. The wikipedia page lists dozens of works for you to look into, plus there are popular works like The New Jim Crow.
I'm still hoping someone who accepts the 'theory' might offer a coherent and argued (yes, argued) account of why I should too.
A well-argued account would be the task of a book, not a comment in a blog. I would be surprised if you did not already know this.
Limited Perspective,
Goodness, the idiotic things people believe when they become obsessed with race.
The shallowness of thought people use when they find an idea uncomfortable.
I looked for maps of temperatures around NY City: https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/urban-heat-new-york-city
That lists mean temperatures (which I was certainly not clear about, my bad), and even so you can see the strips of higher/lower means just as I described.
David Brightly,
But this does does not appear to be the direction of thought within the CRT movement.
The movement is not so unified that it has a single direction of thought.
Rather, it wants to emphasise racial distinctions, to further encode race into law and policy, and so on. Having lived through the second half of the twentieth century I find this a Very Bad Idea, and that to come to this conclusion one's thinking must have gone horribly astray.
1) There are no official/legal distinction in how people are treated based on presumed race.
2) People of some presumed races are never-the-less treated differently based on this presumed race.
Assuming you think the outcome of 2) is wrong, how would you work to correct it without acknowledging that the social construction of race is a factor in how people are being treated? What's your alternative?
Limited Perspective,
There were and remain to this day people who think race is unimportant. I'm thinking the people who want to treat others as people have been the majority. The racist and the racially obsessed have always made the loudest noise.
The ability to think of presumed race as unimportant is a privilege not extended to the people of specific presumed races. It's a comfort that allows us to remain inactive while others suffer.
I'll second what One Brow posted. I could easily "argue" for CRT, but to do so adequately would take a 30 page blog post at a minimum. You'd need to address housing, policing, access to voting, education, redlining, the justice system, prejudice, wealth inequality, and a million other things.
One,
Thank you for the Wikipedia link. It's rather abstract, though it explains 'interest convergence' well enough. My asking for an argument expresses my surprise at Victor's rather, er, uncritical acceptance of CRT: That's it. It is true that people go from the idea that racism can be systemic and institutional to other kinds of conclusions, but this part of it seems to be just true...If all you need for critical race theory is to deny individualist race theory, count me in.
You ask for my alternative. That deflects from the question, Is there a problem, and if so, has CRT diagnosed it correctly?
Why not take the NYC district temperature issue and explain how CRT applies there?
"The ability to think of presumed race as unimportant is a privilege not extended to the people of specific presumed races"
The ability to live in a multiracial society and think race is unimportant is a privilege? No, it's the only way a multiracial society can function. The left has gone full Crazy Star Guy.
Limited,
I think you're confusing me with One Brow.
"1) There are no official/legal distinction in how people are treated based on presumed race."
If that is true, why do positions in government and college applications require that you state your race? It would be a great policy not to presume the race of a person or even ask about how much of their DNA came from different parts of the world.
"I think you're confusing me with One Brow."
Starhopper,
Crazy Star Guy is an affectionate meme when good old brother Bob agrees with bad ideas.
Limited,
"1) There are no official/legal distinction in how people are treated based on presumed race."
I think this is a misstatement. There are "official/legal" requirements that people not be treated differently base on presumed race. Wouldn't the remedy then be to just enforce the law?
I wonder if AZ Dems will vote for Katie Hobbs for Governor of AZ after she controversially fired a black woman just because Hobbs is not a Republican.
I also wonder if AZ Dems would not be raising a stink to high Heaven about Katie Hobbs had she been a Republican/Trump supporter.
I'm going to guess that AZ Dems will vote for the systemic racist merely because she is not a Republican.
There is your CRT in practice. Dems accusing their opposition of doing the things they are actually doing.
bmiller: Are you seriously suggesting that it follows from the core claim of CRT that I mentioned in the OP, that no African-American should ever be fired from a job, or that every black worker's complaint about being fired is justified? In any event Hobbs admitted her previous comments concerning the jury verdict were mistaken. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2021/12/08/katie-hobbs-apologizes-recognizes-discrimination-talonya-adams-firing/6426337001/
On the other hand, she is running against someone who has called for the arrest of Dr. Fauci, and who ran on making charges of election fraud, which of course have not been proven. You simply can't run a democracy if there is no willingness to concede and admit that the process has ended and you have lost.
Further, she supports eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion training in public schools.
https://www.12news.com/article/news/politics/sunday-square-off/kari-lake-trump-curriculum-arizona/75-bb8ac453-39fa-44dc-a5b1-7b69dcf043f1
bmiller: Are you seriously suggesting that it follows from the core claim of CRT that I mentioned in the OP, that no African-American should ever be fired from a job, or that every black worker's complaint about being fired is justified?
Do you as a white person think Hobbs was justified? I'm not in a position to answer questions like that if I want to keep my job.
I suppose Lake is against teaching CRT in schools so that means she's a racist. Got it.
The other charges you flung at Lake are irrelevant to the topic aren't they?
BTW. I don't think Lake ever fired a black woman.
No, not that she's against CRT, unless you define that so broadly as to include such things as diversity training. I am less concerned about CRT than I am about CRT backlash, where you can get away with whitewashing racial issues in American history and American society because, to take them seriously is to be guilty of CRT, and we all know how naughty naughty CRT is.
You asked why Democrats in Arizona support Hobbs even though she approved of the firing a black woman. That is why the other items about Lake were mentioned. https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2021/12/14/katie-hobbs-learned-talonya-adams-firing-best-governor-candidate/6487999001/
What I have been pointing out is that the Right is defining CRT (and Wokeness) so broadly that any interest in diversity, or inclusion, or awareness of white privilege is replied to by saying "Ohhh. I know what this is. You're just caught up in critical race theory. You are just being Woke. You just want to make everyone who is white ashamed of being white, and getting them to walk around in sackcloth and ashes for being white. It's un-American. We can't have that." If you say there's systemic racism afoot in our society, and there's more to not being racist than just not supporting segregation and not using the n-word, then, well, you're just being Woke, and partaking of CRT.
This isn't your daddy's diversity training anymore. Just like it isn't your daddy's sex ed any more.
I think you have it exactly backwards. The Left has been pushing the Overton Window so far for so long the "normal" of a couple months ago is now labeled "semi-fascist".
I'll bet you'd get in trouble for merely implying that it's silly to think "that no African-American should ever be fired from a job, or that every black worker's complaint about being fired is justified? " if this your view was widely published.
You may even be a closet MAGA-Republican
Just like the Nazis!
No, Biden was criticizing conservatives, he was criticizing the de-certificaton movement that put pressure on people like Brad Raffersperger and Brian Kemp in Georgia, the Arizona legislature, the canvassing boards in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, to refuse to certify election results due to unproven allegations of fraud. I say unproven because these cases were taken to court and never got to first base. The Supreme Court that overturned Roe wouldn't touch these election cases with a ten foot pole. The sort of people who want to destroy the FBI in order to protect Trump from being held accountable for his actions, the people who make death threats against FBI agents and election workers. The project of rejecting stalwart conservatives at the primary level with those who accept election denial and decertification. For these MAGA Republicans, conservatives like Gov. Doug Ducey, former Gov. Jan Brewer, and gubernatorial candidate Karrin Taylor Robson are not MAGA enough, no, they're RINOS. John McCain's legacy treated with disdain, and even his military record is disrespected. Liz Cheney is viewed as a leftist.
Unfortunately, giving partisan officials the power to prevent election certification is a two-way street. Imagine a Republican victory in 2024, following by a refusal on the part of Kamala Harris to preside over the certification based on some unproven conspiracy theory about voting machines. What if Hillary had attempting a tenth of what Trump attempted in trying to stop the certification of the 2016 vote. Anyone care to take a guess as to what Republicans would say?
I should have said, Biden was not criticizing conservatives.
David Brightly,
One,
I would prefer the full handle of One Brow, please. If you strongly prefer "Brow", I will accept that. "One" by itself seems too self-important.
You ask for my alternative. That deflects from the question, Is there a problem, and if so, has CRT diagnosed it correctly?
We have a massive inequality that correlates highly into membership of a presumed race; it's much too high in too many different areas to simply be coincidence. That's a pretty good sign of a problem.
In the absolute sense, all theories are wrong. The better question would be, "Does CRT have a model that better explains our social reality than the offered alternatives (such as meritocratic placement in economic class)?". From what I can tell, the answer to that questions is "Yes".
Why not take the NYC district temperature issue and explain how CRT applies there?
You would need to start with why there are largely black districts of Harlem at all. What were the social and legal forces that created this concentration, and why did it continue when, for example, we don't really have Irish neighborhoods in NYC anymore. Then you would move on to the decisions that were made in terms of street layout, subway accessibility, etc. regarding whether the population was considered people who worked in those neighborhoods, or for the large part were people who went elsewhere to work and then came home. Then you fold in the existence, or lack thereof, for spending on a population that would be out of the neighborhood during the day.
Not being an expert, I've probably missed a half-dzen other contributing factors. All of these things would need to be examined for the level of effect, if any, upon decisions regarding where trees would be planted.
Limited Perspective,
If that is true, why do positions in government and college applications require that you state your race?
Because of inequality resulting from distinctions in society that not legal/official
It would be a great policy not to presume the race of a person or even ask about how much of their DNA came from different parts of the world.
It would be, unless such policy tended to reinforce discrimination rather than eliminate it.
Just curious Victor, what was the reason given for the start of Muller investigation and the purpose of the investigation? What is your understanding of the origin and purpose?
1. Origin?
2. Purpose?
The reason I'm asking is I'm seeing two ways to react to an election people thought was a conspiracy and an illegitimate election. To each of your "disrespect," "disdain," party traitors whatever, there is always counter-examples from the other side.
If you think the Left is this rational, civil, political force in America you live in the bubble of the Left. Unfortunately, us on the Right can not live in that bubble. Hollywood, Madison Ave, Big Tech, the University, Sports, remind us daily of the values and point of view of the Left. Their view is ubiquitous. How does the Left get exposure to ideas outside their bubble?
"Because of inequality resulting from distinctions in society that not legal/official"
How do we get rid of inequality in society?
Victor,
Biden called the people who voted for Trump a threat to democracy.
"As I stand here tonight, equality and democracy are under assault. We do ourselves no favor to pretend otherwise," he said. "There’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans. And that is a threat to this country."
It's his run-up justification for arresting his political opponent.
bmiller,
I wonder if AZ Dems will vote for Katie Hobbs for Governor of AZ after she controversially fired a black woman just because Hobbs is not a Republican.
Most will, some won't. After all, Lake is her opponent.
I also wonder if AZ Dems would not be raising a stink to high Heaven about Katie Hobbs had she been a Republican/Trump supporter.
You mean, more of a stink than they currently are? Lake is much to politically savvy to apologize for any racist comments or actions she might have done, so there would be no apology to consider.
I'm going to guess that AZ Dems will vote for the systemic racist merely because she is not a Republican.
Some will, especially considering the alternative.
Dems accusing their opposition of not apologizing for doing the things they are actually apologizing for doing.
Fixed it for you.
Do you as a white person think Hobbs was justified?
Hobbs says she was not, that just about covers it.
I'm not in a position to answer questions like that if I want to keep my job.
You must be on very thin ice, indeed.
I think you have it exactly backwards. The Left has been pushing the Overton Window so far for so long the "normal" of a couple months ago is now labeled "semi-fascist".
The MAGAite movement hasn't been normal since 2015.
I'll bet you'd get in trouble for merely implying that it's silly to think "that no African-American should ever be fired from a job, or that every black worker's complaint about being fired is justified? " if this your view was widely published.
I really don't know if you're ignorant enough to be serious here.
Biden called the people who voted for Trump a threat to democracy.
"As I stand here tonight, equality and democracy are under assault. We do ourselves no favor to pretend otherwise," he said. "There’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans. And that is a threat to this country."
There were plenty of people who voted for Trump that were not MAGA Republicns.
It's his run-up justification for arresting his political opponent.
Trump has already provided the justification for that, with no help from Biden.
Hey One Brow,
I'm glad you brought up the issue of subways. Here in Maryland/D.C., the subway and light rail systems are embarrassingly skewed toward the convenience of white neighborhoods to the disadvantage of black ones. The majority of lines in D.C. and ALL of them in Maryland seem to have been deliberately planned to avoid any place where a majority of the potential riders are non-white. Those residents, if they require public transport, are compelled to use the bus system, which is far more time consuming for commuters* and generally less reliable. If that ain't systemic racism, then I don't know what is.
* A ride from point A to point B on the Metro that would take, let's say, 20 minutes can take as much as an hour by bus.
Oh, and by the way. Would you settle for us calling you Taliesin, which is Welsh for "Shining Brow"? Kinda cool, in my opinion.
BTW. Simply stomping one's feet and yelling there was NO CHEATING in the 2020 election and so STOP TALKING about all the irregularities is not helpful to convince people there was actually no cheating. All the opposition to any investigation causes even greater suspicion. If one was interested in alleviating concern he should encourage robust investigation and not ignore evidence he doesn't like
When 55% of the voting public thinks there was cheating, it's more than just a conspiracy theory and that is a threat to democracy. Dems and Republicans should work to ensure there is no cheating. The used to do that.
It's always amusing to me when people find this magic explanation for things. To the racist, every problem in African countries and black communities around the world are because of their race. To the racially obsessed, subways and trees are racial. Same people, different perspective.
My magic bullet is the devil. He's everywhere and in everything. Ask me for an explanation of anything, it's the devil.
Miller,
When the Left needed to shut down speech about questioning the election, I knew they were juvenile liars. We are Americans we can question anything.
"we can question anything"
But not always intelligently. For instance, if you doubt that we landed on the Moon, you're not just exercising your right to free speech - you're also being an idiot.
Three is a difference between being a Trump voter and being a MAGA Republican. Lots and lots of people voted for Trump because they preferred him to the Democratic alternative, not because they were on board with the entire MAGA agenda or would support the attempts to overthrow the election results. Sure, lots of people have questioned election results. What you can't do it harass election workers, secretaries of state, governors, and canvassing boards to get the result you want, not to mention your own vice-President who as a ceremonial role to play in the certification of the electoral college results. Trump voters are divided between the real devotees who will believe anything Trump says, and people who voted for Trump but would just as soon someone else represent the conservative viewpoint.
There is no such being as The Left or The Right. I should probably guard my speech more carefully, because I have no doubt broken that rule. There are people with more or less right-wing or left-wing viewpoints, and they vary amongst themselves considerably.
"There are people with more or less right-wing or left-wing viewpoints, and they vary amongst themselves considerably."
True. I, for instance, am quite conservative on most so-called "social issues", yet am solidly liberal on economic ones.
Brother Bob,
Are you so afraid, scared scaredy cat afraid of people who deny the moon landing that you can't give that idiotic theory on YouTube?
I agree with Victor. We Republicans need to make a distinction between the guy who mowed down the Waukesha Christmas parade with his car and BLM. We also need to distinguish between people who voted for Bernie Sanders and the lunatic who shot to pieces Republican baseball players with an assault rifle. It wasn't all Democrats that burned down American cities in the summer of 2021, just the extremists in their midst. I'm just saying the next president needs to call out the violence in the Democratic party. I'm not saying that all Democrats are evil, I'm just saying they need to get rid of the violence, destruction, and questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election.
I think the best strategy for Republicans is to constantly, without ceasing, remind people of each case of violence on the Left and also say that's not quite all Democrats.
Limited,
But isn't it ALL Democrats that still haven't condemned all those things you mentioned?
Miller,
I would guess, completely subjective living in California, that 90% of Republicans know the blow by blow minutes of what happened on January 6th. I would guess that 10% of Democrats know the origins and purpose of the Mueller investigation.
I doubt they care either. Other than it didn't accomplish what they wished.
You're right, it didn't get rid of the duly elected President. But hey, at least they were able to burn down someone's dry cleaning business.
Exactly which cities were "burned down" in the summer of 2021 (other than those that perished in climate change-caused wildfires? Perhaps a building or two, here and there, but hardly "cities".
I would advise you to guard against hyperbole. Makes for a poor argument.
Fair enough Starhopper.
Oh, and by the way... Trump today promised that he will pardon everyone involved in the January 6th assault on the Capitol. But he has repeatedly claimed over the months that there were no Trump supporters amongst the insurrectionists, but that they were all ANTIFA. Does this mean he's planning to pardon members of ANTIFA?
I'm curious Starhopper, without looking it up, do you know the origins of the Mueller investigation? And can you tell me how many of the January 6th rioters have been convicted of insurrection/sedition?
Which one do you want? There were so many valid reasons to open up the investigation. It's a shame that Barr declined (for purely political reasons) to indict Trump, when the evidence so clearly pointed to his guilt.
You were right Limited.
Ignorant and proud of it.
Give me the FBI reason at the time. How many convicted of insurrection?
"I'm curious Starhopper, without looking it up, do you know the origins of the Mueller investigation? And can you tell me how many of the January 6th rioters have been convicted of insurrection/sedition?"
Actually, I rarely spend more than a minute or two each day thinking about such stuff, now that I'm fairly confident Trump is finally on his way out. I spend nearly all my time thinking about baseball and my forthcoming book on starhopping.
Go Star, think on your feet.
Fair enough Star. Good luck to the O's and and wish you the best on astronomy.
To show you just how conservative I am socially, I STILL haven't reconciled myself to the American League's designated hitter rule.
Now that made me laugh Bob. Forgive me, Go Dodgers!!!!!!
Hello One Brow,
I googled race income correlation US. The leading hit was
this article from the EPI. Figure A shows significant disparities in median income across ethnic groups. But note Figure B. Poverty rates were falling in the period 2013--2019 across all groups but the fall is obviously faster in the non-white groups. So maybe the problem is naturally ameliorating?
There are Black neighbourhoods in NYC rather than Irish because the Irish largely arrived two generations before and have since moved on. There is now Black migration southwards. Weren't decisions about city street plans, etc, made by private developers decades back before modern town-planning legislation was introduced? Poor people like the Black migrants from the south occupied just the districts they could afford.
Are there alternative theories? A friend of mine this evening told me about an idea he had found in Max Weber, the German sociologist. A group of people sharing some otherwise non-economic characteristic can sometimes find a way to monetise it. Establishing business associations, professional bodies, trade unions might be examples. The thought is that this can be morally dubious, a 'conspiracy against the public' (Adam Smith). To assuage their guilt they demonise the out-group, portraying them as less-deserving. This is all new to me and I'll have to research it further.
If that ain't systemic racism, then I don't know what is. Well, Is it racism or is it economics? Places with good transport connections have higher property values which may be beyond the reach of lower income people. The racism theory has things inverted: the rail links don't come to the people, the people arrange themselves around the links.
There is no such being as The Left or The Right. Maybe they are socially constructed?
Wikipedia is good on numbers, less good on ideas. Here are some George Floyd numbers.
A short history of Harlem.
Philip Payton. The father of "Black Harlem"
Starhopper said...
Oh, and by the way. Would you settle for us calling you Taliesin, which is Welsh for "Shining Brow"? Kinda cool, in my opinion.
It is cool, but it's not my college nickname, so I'll stick with the one got back then, should you choose to respect my preference.
bmiller,
BTW. Simply stomping one's feet and yelling there was NO CHEATING in the 2020 election and so STOP TALKING about all the irregularities is not helpful to convince people there was actually no cheating.
There are people who cheat in every state-wide election for any state of a reasonable size. The issue is whether there was cheating to a sufficient degree that it altered the outcomes of the 2020 election. There was NO CHEATING OF A SIZE THAT COULD HAVE CHANGED THE ELECTION OUTCOME IN ANY STATE YOU NAME. By all means, prosecute 7 illegal votes here or 2 illegal votes there, but don't pretend they are a serious threat to election integrity.
Limited Perspective,
Are you so afraid, scared scaredy cat afraid of people who deny the moon landing that you can't give that idiotic theory on YouTube?
Why are you opposed to YouTube deciding what content it does or does not host?
... questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election.
No major Democrat questions/questioned the electoral integrity of the 2016 election. There's a huge difference between discussing (not illegal on Trump's part) influence (aka "legitimacy") and accusations of vote tampering.
David Brightly,
So maybe the problem is naturally ameliorating?
I'm sure some amelioration of the overall size has occurred. I'm not so sure the ratio has improved. The poverty rates for black people seem to be consistently double those for white people (this tracks with what I know about unemployment rates). When unemployment goes down, it goes down twice as fast for black people; when it goes up, it goes up twice as fast for black people. I don't know if we are seeing that effect here.
Weren't decisions about city street plans, etc, made by private developers decades back before modern town-planning legislation was introduced?
New York is continually adjusting it's planning, like any other city.
Poor people like the Black migrants from the south occupied just the districts they could afford.
Of course.
This is all new to me and I'll have to research it further.
I'm not exactly an expert. I'm sure you'll soon have even more questions I can't fully answer.
Well, Is it racism or is it economics?
From what I can tell, much of it is cultural. In St. Louis, our light rail has a blue line and a red line. The blue line runs from depressed neighborhoods on the east side of the river to major shopping areas. Because the St. Louis area is mostly laid out with automobile traffic in mind, this serves to transport workers from these areas to jobs. The red line extends along the same track and does further east (again, to the job-intensive Scott AFB), and diverges from the blue going west to lead up to the airport. It's clear one of it's main purposes to transport lower-class workers, because middle-class workers are assumed to be drivers.
Places with good transport connections have higher property values which may be beyond the reach of lower income people.
In St. Louis, living areas within easy reach of transport connections have lower property values. Funny how that changes with the color of the people on the train.
Here are some George Floyd numbers.
I would imagine there's some good analysis on how they compare to the 1968 riots, or the riots within a couple of years of 1920.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/07/new-york-heat-deaths-map-inequality
Heat maps in the afternoon in Manhattan/The Bronx included.
Hello One Brow. Sure. I doubt that any one denies the NYC temperature variations. But should we accept the CRT account of how this has come about? I think an historian would say that to decide these questions there is no avoiding the detailed analysis of documentary evidence. In the absence of that, CRT offers an overarching general account, a grand narrative, if you like, that sits well with certain prejudices, much like its Marxist precursor. And Popper's critique of Marxism and other unfalsifiable so-called theories also applies to CRT, or at any rate, it's more popular expressions. It seems it can explain anything. Starhopper says that in Maryland rail transport avoids non-white districts and you seem to say that in St Louis it serves them. This is a philosophical position I'm taking, not a political one.
I found this 20 minute video very helpful: A Guide To Critical Race Theory. I can recommend Mr Chapman's other videos too.
David Brightly,
And Popper's critique of Marxism and other unfalsifiable so-called theories also applies to CRT, or at any rate, it's more popular expressions. It seems it can explain anything. Starhopper says that in Maryland rail transport avoids non-white districts and you seem to say that in St Louis it serves them.
Hypotheses can be falsifiable, theories are not. This is a deep misunderstanding of the scientific process.
A theory that doesn't explain the world as we know it (within that domain of knowledge) is worthless. That's why Newton's theories of motion are no longer the primary model of out world; they stopped explaining it. There's a difference between "explain anything possible" and "explain anything we currently find". Starhopper and I already discussed some of the background differences between travel assumption in Baltimore vs. St. Louis, so it's to be expected that racial bias would also behave differently.
David Brightly,
I found this 20 minute video very helpful: A Guide To Critical Race Theory. I can recommend Mr Chapman's other videos too.
At 1:30ff, Chapman takes the words "discourse" and explicitly, clearly says that it means "values". For all of my life, I've understood "discourse" to be about language and terminology, not values. That's a huge red flag on the very first quote.
At 2:05ff, he refers to color-blindness as one of these values from the 60s civil rights movements. That is historically inaccurate. Most of the civil rights leaders (yes, including King) favored setting up quotas as a means of correcting historical inequalities. Further, he is misrepresenting the source, which is clearly referring to an artificial color-blindness of neo-conservatism, not actual color-blindness; a pretense that color was not an issue when there is considerable evidence it still is.
At 2:50ff, He takes a passage that is followed the the (un-highlighted) "However, things have gone off track" discussion of integration to claim critical race theorists oppose integration between the races when (as you likely remember) they don't even believe race has and greater reality than as a social construct.
I think that's about all I need to see of this video. It's flaws and bias are pretty substantial and obvious. I don't see how a skeptical person would believe anything this guy says unless they want to believe it.
Hello One Brow,
Regarding Popper's critique, in this context 'unfalsifiable' means 'can explain anything'. It implies that the theory is so flexible that observations p and not p can both be accommodated. Popper says such a theory is worthless because it makes no commitments.
On your the point about the falsifiability of theories, is it a deep misunderstanding of the scientific process to say that the Flat Earth Theory has been falsified? Or the Phlogiston theory of combustion, the Aether theory of light transmission, ...?
Regarding your comments on Chapman,
(1:30ff) A little later on p xiv of Critical Race Theory: The key writings... the author says,
The image of a "traditional civil rights discourse" refers to the constellation of ideas about racial power and social transformation... [Visible in Google Books]
If the writer can move from 'discourse' to 'ideas' then Chapman can be allowed to move to 'values', surely? Not such a huge red flag really.
(2:50ff a) Chapman says,
critical race theorists basically say that colour-blindness is like a facade that keeps us from meaningfully dealing with the racism in society.
Do they not say that?
(2:50ff b) Chapman again,
Critical race theorists want to conserve the traditions and values of minorities by resisting racial integration,
in order to avert what they call 'cultural genocide'. Is he wrong? From the page shot at 3:35,
...the color-blind assimilationist program implies the hegemony of white culture.
I am lucky in that I can afford to spend twenty minutes to watch a video summarising CRT. Can you suggest an alternative?
Thanks for the video David. It looked to me like Chapman tried to explain what CRT was from his sources without editorial comment or slant. He was transparent about which sources he used and even the source he relied on most heavily so people can check for themselves:
Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement
Here are links to the editors of that book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberl%C3%A9_Crenshaw
https://www.wsulaw.edu/divi_overlay/neil-gotanda/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Peller
https://www.law.columbia.edu/faculty/kendall-thomas
I doubt someone who is trying to misrepresent a movement would tell his audience to read the unadulterated works of it's advocates so they could check for themselves if he was being fair and accurate.
bmiller,
I fully expected that you would endorse Chapman's analysis, and am unsurprised that you would think Chapman expects the majority of his viewers to check what he is saying against the source material.
David Brightly,
I'm using this notion of theory (wording from Wikipedia):
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.
Regarding Popper's critique, in this context 'unfalsifiable' means 'can explain anything'. It implies that the theory is so flexible that observations p and not p can both be accommodated. Popper says such a theory is worthless because it makes no commitments.
If you fill a balloon with helium, physics predicts it rises. If you fill a balloon with nitrogen, physics predicts it falls. As you are applying Popper's standard, physics is worthless.
On a large land mass, evolutionary theory predicts that predator species tend to increase in size over time. On a small island, evolutionary theory predicts larger invasive species tend to shrink over time. As you are applying Popper's standard, evolutionary theory is worthless.
Perhaps the problem here is not physics, nor evolutionary biology, nor critical race theory. Perhaps the problem is with Popper's standard (which I have certainly seen criticized from time to time). Perhaps the problem is with your application thereof.
On your the point about the falsifiability of theories, is it a deep misunderstanding of the scientific process to say that the Flat Earth Theory has been falsified? Or the Phlogiston theory of combustion, the Aether theory of light transmission, ...?
Which of these theories predict the sorts of pseudo-contradictions you describe?
In any case, I'm not familiar with Flat Earth theory. I'm familiar with a hypotheses, and various ad hoc explanations for observations/phenomena that run counter to what the flat earth hypothesis would predict, but not a theory. Phlogiston theory has been superseded, in part because it predicted a weight decrease when things burn instead of an increase (as happens to some metals). The aether hypothesis was discarded because it predicted that light going in different directions from a moving source would travel at different speeds.
What has been disproven in critical race theory?
David Brightly,
If the writer can move from 'discourse' to 'ideas' then Chapman can be allowed to move to 'values', surely? Not such a huge red flag really.
I'm not sure what there would be to discourse about, if not ideas. "Idea" seems to be a necessary component of "discourse". "Values" is not. Of course, Chapman is allowed to say pretty much anything he likes. It's only a red flag to those looking for an honest portrayal.
critical race theorists basically say that colour-blindness is like a facade that keeps us from meaningfully dealing with the racism in society.
Do they not say that?
Yes, in the specific context of the pretense of color-blindness engaged in to avoid dealing with the reality of non-color-blindness. Does context become irrelevant when discussing CRT?
Critical race theorists want to conserve the traditions and values of minorities by resisting racial integration,
in order to avert what they call 'cultural genocide'. Is he wrong?
No, but that has little to do with integration, which is not something opposed by critical race theorists. I (a non-Pole) lived among Polish people, who also kept their heritage with assemblies, building, etc. designed to allow them to freely express their Polish identity. Poles have been allowed to integrate without giving up their heritage. The same is true of Germans, the French, the Irish, etc.
...the color-blind assimilationist program implies the hegemony of white culture.
Do you agree there is a stark difference between integration and assimilation?
I am lucky in that I can afford to spend twenty minutes to watch a video summarising CRT. Can you suggest an alternative?
Perhaps, but it's easy enough to find videos of Derrick Bell Jr., Cornel West, Tara Yosso, Khiara Brides, etc. Why trust my judgment? Still, here's one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8ix4Y2FIv0
One Brow,
We are talking past one another with regard to the falsifiability of theories. Can you see why?
Re your complaints about Chapman. You agree, with some reservations, that he gets it right in the latter two out of three cases. We can score the first point a draw. Hardly reason to say his work's 'flaws and bias are pretty substantial and obvious', surely?
And, No, I don't agree that there is 'a stark difference between integration and assimilation'.
Thanks for the Bridges video. I'll have to watch it again.
David Brightly,
No, I don't see why we are talking past each other. I'm directly saying that, regardless of it's validity, your use of Popper's standard is incompatible with any sort of science. When CRT predicts that government investment will primarily reinforce the social structure, that could mean supporting the desire of the wealthy to use mass transit in one city, and supporting the business class by arranging transit for the poor in another, with no reference to "observations p and not p", since we are discussing different locations where the upper class want different things.
Stating that Chapman is misrepresenting the positions of CRT is a proper subset of saying that he is not "getting it right". Misrepresenting what they mean by color-blindness (not to mention being outright wrong about the civil rights movement of the 60s), and mistaking integration for assimilation are fundamentally incorrect portrayals of CRT. What I don't get is how you fail to see this.
No, I don't agree that there is 'a stark difference between integration and assimilation'.
So, for you, any time a person moves next door to you and sends their kids to the same school as yours, you assume they will automatically adopt your habits, values, legends, etc.? Because the former is integration, that latter is assimilation, and you've just said you don't see a difference. I truly find that hard to believe.
One Brow,
Semantics. We agree on what 'hypothesis' means. I use 'hypothesis' and 'theory' interchangeably. You use 'theory' to mean well-tested and as yet unfalsified hypothesis, taken as established. In Popper an hypothesis is 'falsifiable' if it's possible there be a fact p that is in contradiction with the hypothesis. In practice this means that an unfalsifiable hypothesis can be argued by its supporters to be consistent with any fact that happens to turn up. That's what makes it worthless as explanation. Popper's targets were Marxism and Psychoanalysis. CRT, in its scientific as opposed to propagandist guise, is similar. It so weakens the notion of 'racism' from the personal which we can all understand to something that can be found everywhere and made to explain oppression. Like the miasma theory of disease.
Semantics again. I take it that by 'integration' CRT means mere geographic mixing of a minority within the majority. 'Assimilation' means the minority losing its characteristic culture and taking on that of the majority. CRT desires integration but opposes assimilation. Fair enough. I'm learning something about CRT. The obvious question is, Why the seeming fear of assimilation? It didn't happen to the other minorities you mentioned. And, How do we characterise these cultural aspects that are so valued within the CRT movement?
David Brightly,
I'm using "theory" in the sense I laid out above, which is a larger scope than any individual hypothesis. From what I can tell, it's pretty close to the sense that critical race theorists employ.
There are several falsifiable hypotheses in critical race theory. For example, CRT posits that, despite pseudo-colorblindness, we would expect to see less economic mobility for black people upwards, and a larger percentage of those that scale upwards would have children that fall backwards. If this were not true, if economic mobility were essentially identical among people of different races, then this would be a falsification, as I understand the theory.
Another hypothesis would be unfair employment opportunities. If you control for other factors such as clothing, hairstyle, the existence of a prison record, etc., critical race theory would say that you will nonetheless see differential hiring by race, something experimentally verifiable.
The obvious question is, Why the seeming fear of assimilation? It didn't happen to the other minorities you mentioned. And, How do we characterise these cultural aspects that are so valued within the CRT movement?
Looking at a larger picture, we find assimilation is expected of Chinese but not Swedes, Native Americans but not Serbs, Latinx but not Spaniards. Perhaps that is because of the relative closeness of some cultures to others, perhaps because we are more tolerant of differences in people we see (in the literal sense) as being similar -- I think both are a factor there. Cultural traditions have a sort of inertia, they resist being stamped out.
As for how we characterize which of these traditions are valuable, why should a person who doesn't share the traditions be the person who decides which aspects are important?
Yes, I used hypothesis in the singular for simplicity.
Can CRT explain why Asians seem to do better than Blacks in the USA? Indeed, better than whites?
What is your basis for claiming that 'assimilation is expected of Chinese but not Swedes'? And even if it's expected it surely hasn't happened. Chinese culture is alive and well in several anglosphere countries.
Forgive my stuffy academic style of writing. I am curious. Do CRT advocates say what these cultural values are that are at risk from assimilation?
David Brightly,
Can CRT explain why Asians seem to do better than Blacks in the USA? Indeed, better than whites?
After you adjust for socio-economic status, Asians don't do better than white people; they do worse. However, Asian immigrants largely came over with with greater-than-mean-wealth/education, and were/are buoyed by such.
And even if it's expected it surely hasn't happened. Chinese culture is alive and well in several anglosphere countries.
Did you ask any second-generation Chinese if they felt no pressure to assimilate?
Do CRT advocates say what these cultural values are that are at risk from assimilation?
Pressure exists on things like hair styles, generational family structures, etc.
Correcting for socio-economic status seems an odd thing to do if you are comparing incomes. I take it you mean that, for example, Asian doctors, on average, earn less than white doctors? And CRT would ascribe this to racism alone?
Did I ask any second-generation Chinese if they felt no pressure to assimilate? No need. Of course minorities, especially immigrant minorities, come under pressure to assimilate. It's a natural phenomenon and none the worse for that. Opposing it would be like trying to turn back the tides. Nevertheless, the Chinese and others, especially the Jews, have retained many aspects of their culture.
Pressure exists on things like hair styles, generational family structures, etc. Really? Even in the 1970s, say? What do you mean by 'generational family structures'?
David Brightly,
Correcting for socio-economic status seems an odd thing to do if you are comparing incomes. I take it you mean that, for example, Asian doctors, on average, earn less than white doctors? And CRT would ascribe this to racism alone?
I find it odd that you don't realize wealth brings opportunities. I would expect that Asian doctors raised in wealth/poverty would respectively earn less than white doctors raised in wealth/poverty, but I have not checked. Racism is not "alone", it's one force of many in society. It can't be easily separated.
Nevertheless, the Chinese and others, especially the Jews, have retained many aspects of their culture.
Others groups have facedmore intense pressure.
Pressure exists on things like hair styles, generational family structures, etc. Really? Even in the 1970s, say?
Even in 2022.
What do you mean by 'generational family structures'?
Our society is designed for two-generation households, which doesn't always fit well with other cultures.
Why do you say that assimilation is expected of Chinese but not Swedes?
Racism is not "alone", it's one force of many in society. It can't be easily separated. One such factor is networking into the majority population, which immigrant groups, and much of the black population, I guess, tend to lack. If we cannot readily weigh the impacts of these separate factors how do we know that structural racism is a principal factor? Or does the existence of such lacks count as actual racism in the minds of CRT advocates?
Going back to what Chapman said, which you took issue with, CRT seems to have a dilemma. Advocates want integration but not the assimilation that they fear will accompany it. How do they resolve this?
Searching for material on assimilation I found this critique of CRT published in 1998. Again, recommended.
Why do you say that "assimilation is expected of Chinese but not Swedes"?
"Perhaps that is because of the relative closeness of some cultures to others, perhaps because we are more tolerant of differences in people we see (in the literal sense) as being similar -- I think both are a factor there."
One such factor is networking into the majority population, which immigrant groups, and much of the black population, I guess, tend to lack.
Some immigrant groups seem to network better than others.
If we cannot readily weigh the impacts of these separate factors how do we know that structural racism is a principal factor? Or does the existence of such lacks count as actual racism in the minds of CRT advocates?
It's like weighing a box filled with steel balls and sand. When we put it on the scale, we know there is significant weight from both the steel and the silicate. The exact percentage is much harder if we can't separate them for some reason, but that doesn't affect our understanding.
Going back to what Chapman said, which you took issue with, CRT seems to have a dilemma. Advocates want integration but not the assimilation that they fear will accompany it. How do they resolve this?
Integration does not require assimilation, except when social pressure occurs to enforce it. There may be some CRT advocates who fear voluntary assimilation, but I have not read this.
Searching for material on assimilation I found this critique of CRT published in 1998.
pg 689 is a wonderful example of missing the point. pg 694 has a good example of victim-blaming, referring to CRT has inferior scholarship, and (continued on to 695) a pretense that some objectivity is possible, as long as you ignore the pain (perhaps Subotnik needs to follow his own advice here). Footnote 78 on page 696 compare CRT scholarly work with the actions of a defense attorney.
What part of this essay did you feel merited recommendation?
I was not surprised to find that, among other morsels, he also wrote (just one year earlier) "What's Wrong with Faculty-Student Sex? Response II" in Journal of Legal Education Vol. 47, No. 3 (September 1997), where he apparently doesn't understand not only the influence faculty have over students, but also supervisors over employees. Nowadays, should a supervisor become involved with a subordinate, a transfer would almost certainly happen in any company large enough to accommodate such.
Yes, but is it true that assimilation is expected of the Chinese, as you claim? Expected by whom? What's the evidence?
Neil Gotanda, he of the color-blind assimilationist program implies the hegemony of white culture, seems concerned with assimilation. As are Austin, Williams, and Peller, according to Subotnic, p701 et seq.
What bits of Subotnic do I recommend? All of it. It's readable, unlike much of the turgid CRT literature. He exposes their nonsense for what it is. And he likes jokes.
This is good too.
David,
Thanks for the links.
And thanks for caring enough about America to research the subject.
David Brightly,
Yes, but is it true that assimilation is expected of the Chinese, as you claim? Expected by whom? What's the evidence?
Thank you for clarifying your stance here. It's pretty clear that if you were really interested, you could do this research yourself.
Neil Gotanda, he of the color-blind assimilationist program implies the hegemony of white culture, seems concerned with assimilation. As are Austin, Williams, and Peller, according to Subotnic, p701 et seq.
Which says nothing about your contention that integration requires assimilation.
What bits of Subotnic do I recommend? All of it.
I'm sure Subotnik appeals to you on a deep level.
It's readable, unlike much of the turgid CRT literature.
I find Subotnik simple-minded and dry, and if you find writing like this turgid, that doesn't speak well for you.
He exposes their nonsense for what it is.
You have to understand something before you can expose it. Subotnik is too in love with his own societal position to bother.
And he likes jokes.
Considering he said law professors should be able to date law students, in the same way business supervisors can date employees, he *was* a joke (I have no idea if he still holds that opinion).
bmiller,
And thanks for caring enough about America to research the subject.
Your love for white people shines through, as always.
I'm afraid it was the Gotanda piece I found the most turgid. Whole sentences made no sense to me.
Here is my final contribution to this discussion. I hope readers will find it useful. It's in English, not postmodern sociology-speak. Memorable quote: we are now beset by white liberals who are looking for absolution from sins they did not commit and black liberals who are looking to be affirmed for injustices they didn't suffer.
David Brightly,
It's bold of you to acknowledge your limitations.
Thanks for the YouTube link. Vernerable scholars, speaking the same words that Thomas Sowell and Bill Cosby have used. I did notice the complete absence of differential hiring, differential policing, etc. in discussing causes. Perhaps they were taboo? At any rate, white people can always find black people that tell them what they are comfortable hearing.
DB,
Guess he told you.
Guess this is the best place to post this link:
Putin's complaint against the West.
The trouble is, that I can't distinguish what he says from what the Leftist University educators (are there any others?) have been saying for decades.
Who exactly are the "Baddies"?
Well, if you can't tell the difference between Putin and the left, that just proves that you have no idea what "right" or "left" even means, because Putin is an extreme rightist.
Please define "right" and "left"
Right: anything bmiller agrees with
Left: anything he doesn't like
The best thing about those definitions is their consistency.
Do you agree with Putin?
Hell, no! He is a war criminal, who by all that's decent belongs in The Hague.
I didn't ask if you thought he was a criminal. I asked if you agreed with him.
What specifically do you disagree with? That America and the West is not guilty of colonialism for instance?
Or this?
The idea of exceptionalism is criminal and we must turn this shameful page. The breaking of the West's hegemony is INEVITABLE (emphasis his).
Or is it that America is not advocating immoral sexual theories and abandoning religion?
I left out the last sentence:
"America" is doing neither of those things. Individuals within America might be, but let's not paint with a broad brush here. Or are you arguing for a Critical Immorality Theory (CIT)? Are you saying that there's "Systemic Immorality" in America?
So your argument is that Putin is wrong and that America and the West is not guilty of colonialism, exceptionalism and advocating for sexual immorality and against religion?
Colonialism is (was) a fact, but never against Russia. When did the West colonize (or even attempt to colonize) Russia? So are you saying that Putin invaded Ukraine because England colonized Australia, or because France colonized West Africa?
Exceptionalism? I think all civilizations and cultures are guilty of that to one extent or another, to include Russia. (Read Dostoevsky to learn about Russian exceptionalism.)
Is the West guilty of advocating for sexual immorality and against religion? No. Specific individuals within the West may be, but they do not equate to "the West". That would be like saying the city of Phoenix is guilty of theft because one of its citizens robbed a store.
OK, you agree with Putin that the West is guilty of colonialism as well as "exceptionalism". So no moral high ground to judge other nations.
Regarding sexual immorality. Where else but in the West do government sponsored schools advocate teaching small children about sex without morality or expose them to Drag Queen propaganda? Boys in girls locker rooms? etc.
Wait. What? Ukrainians are Christians? I'm withdrawing my support!
"So no moral high ground to judge other nations."
Why not? We're all sinners.
So we shouldn't tell other countries what to do then should we?
We especially shouldn't get involved in a war between 2 countries that have nothing to do with us, right?
I get it. The right wing in this country is all ga-ga for Putin. And why not? After all, your Great Leader Trump was his poodle.
You earlier asked for my definition of right and left. Well, here is my honest definition of "right" - people who can't wait to turn the United States into a fascist dictatorship, with either Trump or a Trump-like figure as president for life, with democracy and elections being a thing of the past, and the people having no voice in how the country is run.
It seems to me that you're agreeing with Putin. So you must be Mr. Fascist.
If you honestly think I agree with Putin, then you are so utterly divorced from reality as to be certifiably insane.
You agreed with him that we are guilty of the sins of colonialism and exceptionalism. But perhaps you disagree with him that the government shouldn't advocate for sexual deviancy like the Biden admin is doing.
Why is it that when you complain about America it's "true" but when Putin says the same thing it's "false"?
bmiller,
Do you agree America has a colonialist past that still has present-day ramifications? Do you agree that American exceptionalism exists? If so, why hound other people about this?
Even stopped clocks are right twice a day. Putin is capable of making true statements with deceitful intent.
Good point, One Brow. Putin could say that 2+2=4, and I'd have to agree with him. Although I'd first have to be sure why he's saying such a thing. With him, there's always an underlying agenda.
I's like those politicians who say they're for "Law and Order". Well, aren't we all? What they really mean is something quite different.
2+2=4 no matter who says it. There's no "what do they really mean" about it.
Thinking that way is to employ the Genetic fallacy. I see that a lot from leftists.
If one wonders why leftist professors emphasize that America is guilty of "colonialism" and "exceptionalism" it seems to me to be an effort to demoralize people who are proud of being America. America should renounce it's sins and embrace communism.
Putin is just using this well worn leftist rhetoric for his own purposes. More effectively I think.
bmiller,
2+2=4 no matter who says it. There's no "what do they really mean" about it.
Thinking that way is to employ the Genetic fallacy. I see that a lot from leftists.
People can also say true things for nefarious reasons.
If one wonders why leftist professors emphasize that America is guilty of "colonialism" and "exceptionalism" ...
America is guilty of "colonialism" and "exceptionalism" no matter who says it. There's no "what do they really mean" about it.
Thinking that way is to employ the Genetic fallacy. I see that a lot from rightists.
True is true no matter who says it and for what reason. It seems leftists in this discussion seem to think it does matter who says it, doubling down on the genetic fallacy.
Thanks for confirming.
Communists good. Putin bad. Truth follows accordingly.
bmiller,
Do you approve of Putin, or do you agree he's an evil man?
Putin is not just evil, he is REALLYevil, on the scale of Hitler, Stalin, and Trump.
America was a series colonies to start with so how could America be "guilty" of "colonialism", whatever that is? If being a colony turns into becoming America that is a good thing.
America is exceptional so I suppose it is "guilty" of exceptionalism. Can't help it that other countries are meh.
Leftists apparently can't stand excellence (and apparently incapable of it) so want to tear it down in envy. Putin sees that and uses their own rhetoric in a way that they either agree with him and and remain consistent but thereby are forced not to judge his actions, or they disagree with him and demonstrate their inconsistency and irrationality replete with hissy fits.
Come to think of it, leftist must hate excellence. Just look at all the communist countries and the hell their citizens have to live through.
bmiller,
England started as a colony as well. However, if you don't understand what colonialism is, your objections to it being discussed are moot.
You speak of Putin with a lot of apparent admiration.
There is also considerable hell visited upon the citizens of rightist countries. Odd how you never worry about them.
Leftists apparently can't stand excellence (and apparently incapable of it)
Yep. They can't even argue well.
Colonialism
Post a Comment