Racism in 21st Century America

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Author Kenny Xu explains why the experience of Asian Americans contravenes the principal tenets of Critical Race Theory.

Oh look! Someone selling a book designed to make white people feel better. I wonder if there is a market for such a book. Also another incredibly bad take on what Critical Race Theory is. How original.

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As problematic as grouping all African-Americans into one group?  All Hispanic-Americans?

Since most of the original African culture was stamped out intentionally by slave owners they are more homogenous since they had to create their own culture. Many descendants of slaves don’t know where their ancestors came from.

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

African-Americans also do not have a "massive shared culture."

Hispanic-Americans also do not have a "massive shared culture."

White Americans also do not have a "massive shared culture."

Stereotypes are, by definition, oversimplified.

Good job. Have a cookie.

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So putting stereotypes aside, why are so many Asian Americans succeeding so well in America?  Why do Harvard and many other colleges and universities openly discriminate against Asian Americans?  See, e.g., here:

I said less discrimination. I didn’t say it was absent. I guess nuance is part of Critical Race Theory and therefore must be stamped out at all costs?

I gave my reasons for their relative success. In recent years they have faced less discrimination than other minorities. Since you don’t believe that the onus is kind of on you to explain it. Tip: I wouldn’t try the genetic superiority angle.

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"The white person . . . {is} doing well."

What was it you were saying about "stereotypes" being "inherently problematic"?

"Everyon else"?  Are you sure?

So we can’t look at statistics and notice generalities? As long as there is one white poor person racism cannot exist or is not serious? Always whataboutism about an individual case. Whataboutism, a favored propaganda tool of Soviet Russia and authoritarian states everywhere for explaining away problems. It has also has the side benefit of destroying all attempts to make society better since if you can point to one person worse off than the people you are trying to help in some way you are shamed for not thinking about that other person instead.

In Soviet Russia it was so ingrained that visitors from the US were often rebutted with any mention of their freer culture with a rejoinder about Jim Crow era lynchings so clearly the United States is much more oppressive and less free. You can get away with any crime as long as you can show that your opponent is worse or infer they are worse or blow something out of proportion as if it were worse.

This kind of rhetoric is part of what is destroying our national discourse. Even as we watch Russian hegemony collapse we may still commit suicide since we have fallen in love with their propaganda. Looks like we will follow them to destruction. There is a certain poetry to it I suppose. I am just not that interested in living through it.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Oh look! Someone selling a book designed to make white people feel better. I wonder if there is a market for such a book. Also another incredibly bad take on what Critical Race Theory is. How original.

Since most of the original African culture was stamped out intentionally by slave owners they are more homogenous since they had to create their own culture. Many descendants of slaves don’t know where their ancestors came from.

Good job. Have a cookie.

I said less discrimination. I didn’t say it was absent. I guess nuance is part of Critical Race Theory and therefore must be stamped out at all costs?

I gave my reasons for their relative success. In recent years they have faced less discrimination than other minorities. Since you don’t believe that the onus is kind of on you to explain it. Tip: I wouldn’t try the genetic superiority angle.

So we can’t look at statistics and notice generalities? As long as there is one white poor person racism cannot exist or is not serious? Always whataboutism about an individual case. Whataboutism, a favored propaganda tool of Soviet Russia and authoritarian states everywhere for explaining away problems. It has also has the side benefit of destroying all attempts to make society better since if you can point to one person worse off than the people you are trying to help in some way you are shamed for not thinking about that other person instead.

In Soviet Russia it was so ingrained that visitors from the US were often rebutted with any mention of their freer culture with a rejoinder about Jim Crow era lynchings so clearly the United States is much more oppressive and less free. You can get away with any crime as long as you can show that your opponent is worse or infer they are worse or blow something out of proportion as if it were worse.

This kind of rhetoric is part of what is destroying our national discourse. Even as we watch Russian hegemony collapse we may still commit suicide since we have fallen in love with their propaganda. Looks like we will follow them to destruction. There is a certain poetry to it I suppose. I am just not that interested in living through it.

I think racebaiting and acrimony, in lieu of reasoned and civil discourse, is a substantial hindrance to improving things.

Marx sought to foment hatred and division between social classes.  These days some folks want to foment hatred and division between races.  Both are caustic and destructive.

Racism is bad.  We need to work hard to reduce its influence in our society.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Oh look! Someone selling a book designed to make white people feel better. I wonder if there is a market for such a book. Also another incredibly bad take on what Critical Race Theory is. How original.

Good job. Have a cookie.

Insults, cheap jabs, and condescending boogie-flicking.  These are the hallmarks of a strong argument, right?

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

“In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.” Given the restoration of all things (a la Alma) I think this principle applies to the here and the hereafter, which is a continuum

“For that which ye do send out shall return unto you again, and be restored…” (Alma 41: 15)

“If he has desired to do evil [or conversely, good] …behold, evil [good] shall be done unto him, according to the restoration of God.” (Alma 42:28)

I think that while it is easier to build honest, truthful, and virtuous systems than to repair broken ones, both endeavors, great and small, have merit. At least I’ve seen the Lord work both ways in this "Titanic" of a world. Fortunately for us, His light shines in the darkness so we can learn from experience, repair our mistakes and dust off the perfect frame in the restoration.

It seems you’ve had your share of youthful activity in this arena, other saints are simply building upon that -- there is your hope eternal!

Yep.  The younger set hasn't yet had time to find out the sad, Machiavellian reality.  They will eventually become cynical too, but will then be replaced with an equally starry-eyed generation of youth.  Very few ever realize the true nature of reality, and so run at a fever pitch chasing rainbows, and other delusions -- seldom focusing on things that truly matter.  All that is encapsulated in "Teach Your Children Well":

 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think racebaiting and acrimony, in lieu of reasoned and civil discourse, is a substantial hindrance to improving things.

And if any mention of racism being a problem is “racebaiting and acrimony” then dealing with racism is a substantial hindrance to improving things? Wait….

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Marx sought to foment hatred and division between social classes.  These days some folks want to foment hatred and division between races.  Both are caustic and destructive.

And capitalists stirred up hatred amongst racial classes to keep the social classes below from uniting against them. It works pretty well. Got any ideas on making them stop?

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Racism is bad.  We need to work hard to reduce its influence in our society.  

No, we need to reduce racism and not just the impact it has. Reducing the influence of it just means it will crop up again and another generation will have to deal with it again.

It is very hard to do this when any time you talk about racism about half the population deflects or runs away or starts playing “whataboutism” games because it makes them deeply uncomfortable.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Insults, cheap jabs, and condescending boogie-flicking.  These are the hallmarks of a strong argument, right?

The post you are tutting about contributed more to the discussion than the one I am quoting. So clucking like a mother hen is the hallmark of a strong argument?

[Ragerunner]

Inside 100 Million Police Traffic Stops: New Evidence of Racial Bias

“The results show that police stopped and searched black and Latino drivers on the basis of less evidence than used in stopping white drivers, who are searched less often but are more likely to be found with illegal items.”

“A "veil of darkness" test was done to analyze whether black drivers are being pulled over at a higher rate during the day than at night, when officers would have a harder time distinguishing race from a distance. After adjusting for the variation in sunset times across the year, researchers found a 5 to 10 percent drop in the share of stopped drivers after sunset who are black, suggesting black drivers are being racially profiled during the day.”

“There was evidence that the bar for searching black and Latino drivers is lower than that for white drivers, even though white drivers were more likely to have contraband. Across states, contraband was found in 36 percent of searches of white drivers, compared to 32 percent for black drivers and 26 percent for Latinos.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna980556

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yep.  The younger set hasn't yet had time to find out the sad, Machiavellian reality.  They will eventually become cynical too, but will then be replaced with an equally starry-eyed generation of youth.  Very few ever realize the true nature of reality, and so run at a fever pitch chasing rainbows, and other delusions -- seldom focusing on things that truly matter.  All that is encapsulated in "Teach Your Children Well":

 

Good song! There must be a message applicable to improving discriminatory house appraisals in there somewhere!

[Ragerunner]

On 3/27/2022 at 3:37 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

A lot of that depends upon the false gospel of progress -- the notion that things are getting and better better every day, in every way.  What happens in the real world is that we come here to Earth temporarily, face problems and are tested, and others also come and are tested in like manner.  No real improvement, but plenty of experience.  That is the nub of it.

We come to earth to become more like our Heavenly Father. Through different opportunities (challenges, blessings, services, etc.) we can become more loving, caring, lifting others and developing Heavenly attributes. 

[smac97]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And if any mention of racism being a problem is “racebaiting and acrimony”

That's not what I said.

Racebaiting and acrimony are often fairly apparent.

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

then dealing with racism is a substantial hindrance to improving things? Wait….

Strawman.  

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And capitalists stirred up hatred amongst racial classes to keep the social classes below from uniting against them. It works pretty well. Got any ideas on making them stop?

Capitalism has its own set of problems, to be sure.  But it beats Marxism by a long shot.  And as we all know, Marxism is the bedrock on which CRT is built:

Quote

The Five Lies of CRT

Nov 29th, 2021 

...

3) CRT is not Marxist

This is a lie spread by those who know it to be a lie, and then repeated by the gullible (whom the Kremlin used to affectionally call “useful idiots”). All of the CRT firmament knows itself as being Marxist, an affirmation made by Angela Harris, Delgado and others. Critical race theory came straight out of Critical Legal Theory (sometimes known as Critical Legal Studies), which came out of the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, which was the first and most important of the Western Marxist schools and which (along with Antonio Gramsci) replaced Karl Marx’s economic determinism with the view that the cultural superstructure (or hegemony) was what dictated the actions or non-actions of the workers, not material relations.

And here: Critical race theory is drenched in Marxist principles

Quote

My investigation opens with the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Marxism is a derivative of Hegelianism, whereby it pulls from Hegel’s dialectical process. Generally speaking, the dialectical is a process for which one comes to know geist (German for mind or spirit). Hegel takes a historical view of how one progresses to know geist. For Hegel, history is merely the progress of the consciousness of freedom to activate its teleological end, viz. to know geist. What Marxism does is take this philosophy and replace geist with production and the struggle to know geist with class struggle, whereby the struggle is for the proletariat to take control of the means of production from the bourgeoisie. Karl Marx states this in the “Communist Manifesto.”

“The history of all…existing society is the history of class struggle…The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class.”

Critical theory (CT), a social theory developed in the mid-1900s, emerges from the Frankfurt School (a collection of European intellectuals and social theorists) as a 20th-century interpretation of Marxism. CT essentially argues that the critique of current social structures should start with how historical beliefs, social norms, and institutions have played a role in their development. While CT is an amalgamation of other social and political philosophies, its roots are in the Marxist belief that current social conditions are the product of history. This belief comes directly from Marx’s writings, where he claims current systems are just the continuation of past systems. He states in the “Communist Manifesto” that “the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society.”

Now, I will discuss CRT, which is merely an extension of CT but with the focus being on race rather than the working class. To avoid the criticism that I am making a strawman argument, I surveyed multiple sources and found The Washington Post used a definition that most supporters of CRT tend to agree with. The Washington Post defines CRT as:

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.

Like CT, CRT argues that social issues in the present are rooted in the past. Additionally, baked into CRT is another Marxist belief that the world can be divided into oppressed and oppressor. We can see this clearly on the first page of the “Communist Manifesto,” whereby Marx states, “[f]reeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another”.

This notion of the world consisting of oppressor and oppressed in a broader sense is essential for CRT, otherwise, there is no distinction between CRT and CT. The terms used in the definition, i.e., “racism is systemic” and “racial inequality is woven into legal systems,” speak to the idea that groups are inherently racist and that systems established by a particular group, whether intentional or unintentional, has built into it, necessarily, biases against other groups.

Fomenting class hatred is a hallmark of Marxism.  And CRT is indeed drenched with it, with the twist of substituting economic categories with racial ones.

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Racism is bad.  We need to work hard to reduce its influence in our society.  

No, we need to reduce racism and not just the impact it has.  Reducing the influence of it just means it will crop up again and another generation will have to deal with it again.

Oi.  You're really working hard to find something to argue about.

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is very hard to do this when any time you talk about racism about half the population deflects or runs away or starts playing “whataboutism” games because it makes them deeply uncomfortable.

It's hard to combat one form of racism by replacing it with another.

When "talk about racism" is code for justifying an approved form of racism (of the "all white people are incorrigibly horrible bigots and oppressors" variety), we're not going to get far.

Racism is bad.  Notions of racial superiority/inferiority are bad.  I am fully on board with this concept.  I am less persuaded by bullies who seek to impose some sort of quasi-Marxist ideology under the guise of "talk{ing} about racism."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

Inside 100 Million Police Traffic Stops: New Evidence of Racial Bias

“The results show that police stopped and searched black and Latino drivers on the basis of less evidence than used in stopping white drivers, who are searched less often but are more likely to be found with illegal items.”

“A "veil of darkness" test was done to analyze whether black drivers are being pulled over at a higher rate during the day than at night, when officers would have a harder time distinguishing race from a distance. After adjusting for the variation in sunset times across the year, researchers found a 5 to 10 percent drop in the share of stopped drivers after sunset who are black, suggesting black drivers are being racially profiled during the day.”

“There was evidence that the bar for searching black and Latino drivers is lower than that for white drivers, even though white drivers were more likely to have contraband. Across states, contraband was found in 36 percent of searches of white drivers, compared to 32 percent for black drivers and 26 percent for Latinos.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna980556

Your focus seems to be on manifestations of racism, including some very disputed data about school district finances (it only lists unrestricted funds - not restricted funds). It is similar to using unrestricted data to bemoan the lack of school building construction and maintenance, and ignoring restricted funding provided for that purpose. School district funding is incredibly complicated and needs years of experience to analyze. I worked in school district finances and operations for many years in over 100 districts. Aside from that . . . .

I am much more interested in hearing your thoughts as the OP on the cause(s) of racism. Racism, ethnocentrism, tribalism, creedalism, and a host of other manifestations of bias, prejudice, sin, etc. have been with us for millennia, if not for as long as we have recorded history. Would you mind sharing your thoughts on its or their causes? That seems important, as I know of no way to cure something without a clear understanding of its underlying etiology. If you have already done so and I missed it, I apologize. I am especially interested in how you view racism as inherently different from other human biases and prejudices and their manifestations as well. Manifestations of conflict, anger, unfairness, are easy to label except when they are not (think of the Academy award situation narrative had the parties been of separate races). They weren't, so much of the narrative on this particular manifestation has focused on the appropriateness of the use of violence, period. Thanks so much.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Ragerunner said:

We come to earth to become more like our Heavenly Father. Through different opportunities (challenges, blessings, services, etc.) we can become more loving, caring, lifting others and developing Heavenly attributes. 

Hopefully.  Unfortunately that utopian approach often gets lost in the  muddle of real life.

[Ragerunner]

52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hopefully.  Unfortunately that utopian approach often gets lost in the  muddle of real life.

I don’t see it as utopian goal. I see it as the purpose of life. We all succeed and fail at different levels and at different times in our life.

But the goal is to get up the next day and try and be a little better.

I still have enough faith in humanity that most people still are trying to be a better person.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Capitalism has its own set of problems, to be sure.  But it beats Marxism by a long shot.  And as we all know, Marxism is the bedrock on which CRT is built:

We do not all know that. There is nothing Marxist about examining the application of law to determine whether it unfairly targets or is used to unfairly target minorities.

That is what Critical Race Theory is. It should be completely unobjectionable because it is. Despite this propagandists have decided to label anything they do not like as CRT and here we are. We can’t discuss any of these things because the proposals put forward are all about fighting CRT which neatly obfuscates the real intent of legislation. It is chicanery and the people who are using it know that. It shouldn’t work on any educated population who should instead ask what this legislation designed to fight CRT actually does and what it will actually limit in the classroom and what impact it will have on society. That would be a conversation worth having.

Instead we are playing word games which is exactly what the people behind this want. If we actually looked at the legislation we might find it abhorrent and wonder what the hell they are trying to pull. That was my reaction when I actually read some of the “anti-CRT” legislation.

Seriously, read over this garbage: https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2022/02/16/teacher-anti-crt-bills-coast-to-coast-a-state-by-state-guide/?sh=15a09ecf4ff6

Kids getting educations under a lot of those bills if they are enforced are going to be idiots which is probably the intent. I find a grim irony that the people who were “mocking the snowflakes” are now passing laws explicitly against making any student feel “guilt or discomfort”. I suspected that was projection.  

Many states aren’t keeping it to public schools. They are trying to regulate what colleges are teaching too. Some are giving parents the right to sue teachers. People should be screaming unholy hell about this but instead they just talk about CRT and how bad it is as if they are talking about what is actually going on.

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Capitalism has its own set of problems, to be sure.  But it beats Marxism by a long shot.  And as we all know, Marxism is the bedrock on which CRT is built:

We do not all know that.

Yes, I think we do.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

In this Essay, I am interested in the relationship among ideology, ideological critique, and emotion. I argue that the ideological critique produced by Marx in the nineteenth century and by critical legal theorists in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries undertakes not only to persuade our minds but also to rally our emotions.
...
Like Marx, critical race theorists therefore want us to care about the subordinated. Yet several pitfalls await...
...
{C}ritical theory must simultaneously convince us that injustice is everywhere, and that change is possible. Critical race theory, for example, takes the position that racism pervades our institutions, our beliefs, and our everyday practices.
...
Marx’s dazzling analysis of capitalism and his conviction that the laws of historical materialism would bring on the revolution of the proletariat as inevitably as the sun rises are still riveting to contemporary theorists.
...
Following Marx, contemporary theorists have suggested that workers suffer not only from having their creativity thwarted, but from having their own emotionality turned into a commodity. 

This is from Angela Harris, who inter alia wrote the forward for Critical Race Theory (Third Edition): An Introduction (Critical America, 20) 3rd Edition by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. 

And here:

Quote

RT is correctly viewed by parents as the inculcation of a specific worldview based on postmodern and neo-Marxist ideology. Despite the assertion of political pundits such as Donna Brazile, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, or the current White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, CRT is not simply teaching children about systemic racism throughout American history.

CRT has its roots in the early 20^th Century thought of neo-Marxist Antonio Gramsci, founder of the Italian Communist Party. His desire was to spur on the stalled communism of 19^th Century social revolutionists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels toward an overthrow of the “bourgeoisie” (ruling middle- and upper-class) by the proletariat (working-class). To accomplish this goal, societal norms and institutions, such as family, nation state, capitalism, and God, needed to be torn down, and this is where we begin to see the notion of group-based morality, with the idea that what is moral is what serves the interests of the “oppressed” or “marginalized.”

While European Marxism focused on class, a distinctly American brand of Marxism was brought to America in 1937 by scholars from the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, known commonly as the Frankfurt School, who left Nazi Germany to escape the Third Reich. They eventually landed in New York where they setup shop at the Columbia University Teachers’ College. While most of the Frankfurt scholars returned to Germany after the defeat of the Nazis, Herbert Marcuse stayed behind and became one of the leading spokesmen of Critical Theory (on which CRT is based) during the massive upheavals of the 1960s and early 1970s caused by riots and violence associated with the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam movements. The focus shifted specifically to oppressed ethnic, racial, and gender groups.

In short, CRT argues that America’s legal, economic, and political systems are inextricably racist. It argues that racism advances only the interests of white elites materially and working-class whites mentally. CRT Chooses race-consciousness over the Enlightenment view of colorblindness as a societal norm. Since all whites benefit from an unearned advantage, race-consciousness remedies rectify this inherent injustice. CRT criticizes the civil-rights movement and the liberal ideology it promotes. The view is civil rights laws are limited to isolated discriminatory acts by individuals or businesses, when in fact discrimination continues to be both pervasive and systemic. CRT rejects the principle of equal opportunity, believing it to be a myth, and rejects conceptions of “merit” since only those in power determine what is equal or what has merit. Finally, CRT promotes equality of results instead of equality of opportunity.

CRT does provide some important critiques, but its prescriptions hardly accord with the ideals of traditional civil rights and is directly opposed to the vision of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as it rejects the Enlightenment values of classical liberalism with its notions of equal opportunity, individual liberty over group rights, and colorblindness under the law as reflected in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. Dr. Wyatt T. Walker, one of Dr. King’s closest friends and advisers, argues that CRT divides people into groups, explicitly pitting racial groups against each other, emphasizing differences instead of similarities, thus destroying the concept of the individual within the context of our shared humanity.

Whereas the hope that one day we would judge one another by the content of individual character, and not the color of our skin, CRT defines people by categories of race, placing people in either “oppressor” or “oppressed” power groups. In response to this, Dr. Wyatt asks, how can two people ever bind together in friendship if they are members of inherently opposed power groups? Why should an individual strive to succeed by merit if group dynamics make this impossible? How will we ever find peace among the races if can’t look at each other as individuals, person to person, based on actual facts and intentions? We simply cannot reconcile as a people if we allow ourselves to be judged by the ethnic, race, and gender essentialism of Marxist-style power groups, and thus we should reject CRT.

And here:

Quote

Most people now know critical race theory is an academic exercise that has found widespread popularity in the dominant culture and American institutions. Its Marxist roots and ideas emerged from the Frankfurt School of critical theory and Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist.  

The ideas pushed forward correctly surmised that economic arguments alone were failing to adequately transform free societies toward a Marxist takeover. A culture must be plundered, and institutions overtaken to meet the goals of communism. One of the main ways to upend culture is to change the language. Critical race theory thrives on enforcing restrictions on speech and replacing normative terms with a more politicized language. Furthermore, educational truths such as mathematics, reason, and science are often deemed “white ways of knowing.”  

The authors shine at exposing the absurdity of CRT, which upends the entire American Civil Rights Movement ideals of equality. Critical race theory posits that the entire American experience and American experiment is rooted in and centers around a white supremacist worldview. This is evident in attempts to flip the American narrative from 1776 to 1619, the date where the first African slaves arrived in the English colony. Yet, deconstructing America’s founding ideals only positions the nation away from the enduring principles that has helped secure a better climate for racial equality. 

Critical race theory is likewise an assault on the Christian worldview. This was evident early on when the Black Lives Matter movement stated that the abolition of the nuclear family was listed on their website. Negative attention surrounding the statement caused the organization to remove that line after several years of public presence. Since good government and good citizens begin in the family, Marxist movements see the traditional family as a barrier to coalescing control. “Limited government means that control must also exist apart from the state: in strong communities, in families, and within citizens themselves,” writes Swain and Schorr.  

Marxism is often coupled with atheism, and one of the concerning issues with CRT is how its managed to receive hearings in some Christian denominations and churches. The overarching understanding for Christians needs to be that being born in the image of God equates to equality and should not pit races against each other and make others feel inferior based on race, something Critical Race Theory rejects.  

And so on.

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is nothing Marxist about examining the application of law to determine whether it unfairly targets or is used to unfairly target minorities.

Examining law, society, etc. as pertaining to race and racism is certainly not inherently Marxist.  But there there can surely be an Marxist approach to that, and CRT manages to be steeped in Marxist ideology.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 29, 2022 by smac97

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

There is nothing Marxist about examining the application of law to determine whether it unfairly targets or is used to unfairly target minorities.

That is what Critical Race Theory is. It should be completely unobjectionable because it is. Despite this propagandists have decided to label anything they do not like as CRT and here we are.

The more I think about the argument about CRT, the less I care about what it's called.   I'll make everyone a deal.  Just tell me what I can call stuff like Professor Bybee's nonsense, so I can use the correct name for it when I speak out against it.

No really, arguing about whether something is CRT or not, seems like a waste of time for both sides.  

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Your focus seems to be on manifestations of racism, including some very disputed data about school district finances (it only lists unrestricted funds - not restricted funds). It is similar to using unrestricted data to bemoan the lack of school building construction and maintenance, and ignoring restricted funding provided for that purpose. School district funding is incredibly complicated and needs years of experience to analyze. I worked in school district finances and operations for many years in over 100 districts. Aside from that . . . .

I am much more interested in hearing your thoughts as the OP on the cause(s) of racism. Racism, ethnocentrism, tribalism, creedalism, and a host of other manifestations of bias, prejudice, sin, etc. have been with us for millennia, if not for as long as we have recorded history. Would you mind sharing your thoughts on its or their causes? That seems important, as I know of no way to cure something without a clear understanding of its underlying etiology. If you have already done so and I missed it, I apologize. I am especially interested in how you view racism as inherently different from other human biases and prejudices and their manifestations as well. Manifestations of conflict, anger, unfairness, are easy to label except when they are not (think of the Academy award situation narrative had the parties been of separate races). They weren't, so much of the narrative on this particular manifestation has focused on the appropriateness of the use of violence, period. Thanks so much.

Where the love of money (or its fungible equivalent) is the root of all evil, I think it would also cause the evil of racism. The love of money over people, a thing vs people, sets up enmity and its justification, some of it quite creative, between people and peoples.

Edited March 29, 2022 by CV75

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I think we do.  See, e.g., here:

This is from Angela Harris, who inter alia wrote the forward for Critical Race Theory (Third Edition): An Introduction (Critical America, 20) 3rd Edition by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. 

And here:

And here:

And so on.

Examining law, society, etc. as pertaining to race and racism is certainly not inherently Marxist.  But there there can surely be an Marxist approach to that, and CRT manages to be steeped in Marxist ideology.

Thanks,

-Smac

So caring about the subordinated is Marxist ideology. That is the main element they share. Mentioning that both care about the subordinated does not impugn one with the failings of the other. If it does then Jesus is a Marxist and and the Book of Mormon is a Marxist text. Do you really want to go down that road? Helping the subordinated often has pitfalls but it doesn’t have to do with Marxism.

Neo-Marxism and classical Marxism are very different animals. If you had said that Neo-Marxism has some shared history with critical race theory I would have agreed with you. Classical Marxism and Critical Race Theory only share some broard premises that are also self-evident. I admit that it is somewhat concerning that the ruling classes have decided to dig their fingers deeper into education to try to continue their hegemony. This is exactly what Marx predicts happens in education. I like to believe he was wrong about their level of control, at least now in this country. I am beginning to thing he might be right.

The idea that this movement is being pioneered by concerned parents is ridiculous. This wasn’t a grass-roots movement. The whole thing was prepackaged and given the codeword of Critical Race Theory and the puppets were directed in their dance. Now we have “parents” making terrorist threats against school board members. Why the violent rhetoric? I have heard pleas from parents to change things in schools my whole life and this is the first time they seem more intent on nationwide violent intimidation than winning by persuasion or elections. There is a lot of stench in this that smells of those modern secret combinations I hear so much about. It is also as inept and clumsy as most such combinations and yet somehow more successful than it ever should be. Fits the pattern.

 

I guess you don’t want to discuss what the anti-CRT movement is actually doing? Pushing teens back into the closet, sanitizing history, making a teacher mentioning that gay and lesbian relationships exist something parents can sue the teacher for? 

No?

I suspect the goal is the eradication of public education.

“And the people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their riches and their chances for learning; yea, some were ignorant because of their poverty, and others did receive great learning because of their riches.”

The devil isn’t much of an innovator.

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

The more I think about the argument about CRT, the less I care about what it's called.   I'll make everyone a deal.  Just tell me what I can call stuff like Professor Bybee's nonsense, so I can use the correct name for it when I speak out against it.

No really, arguing about whether something is CRT or not, seems like a waste of time for both sides.  

Then why not discuss the legislation going forward that I linked above and how it is going to combat “CRT” and terrorize the lgbt community and drive teachers out of their profession and stifle the marketplace of ideas? That will get us out of abstraction and we can see what the results of this movement are and what their potential goals are. Real ‘rubber meets the road’ stuff.

By their fruits shall ye know them and all that.

[HappyJackWagon]

I watched a documentary yesterday called The Jesus Music which touched on racism in America from the perspective of worship. It started with the hippy movement of the 60's and how the disillusioned hippies were looking for more meaning in life and weren't finding it in the free love, drugs, and rock and roll. The Jesus (Freak) movement was born because many of the hippy artistic types adjusted what they loved (music) to match their newfound message of Jesus. The movement has shifted many times since then but it was Billy Graham who really gave a stamp of approval for non-traditional Jesus music as a mode of worship. There was a level of recognition that different people needed to access God in ways that were meaningful to them, and not simply by dressing in shirts and ties, dresses and listening to organ music while singing hymns.

The way this relates to race is that from the very beginning there were black artists and white artists and the developing music industry of contemporary Christian Music or Worship music didn't do a very good job at integrating the races within the genre. This of course wasn't just a problem with the music industry but a problem with churches in general as Sunday mornings were the most segregated hours of the week with the races keeping to themselves. It was suggested that racial tensions will always exist in America until the churches figure out a way to end their own internal segregation. Sure, it's not a complete segregation but in many places and in many churches it is pretty darn close. So figuring how to address racial topics and racial segregation in meaningful ways at church and through the music in church, could be a way to make some headway.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

The more I think about the argument about CRT, the less I care about what it's called.   I'll make everyone a deal.  Just tell me what I can call stuff like Professor Bybee's nonsense, so I can use the correct name for it when I speak out against it.

No really, arguing about whether something is CRT or not, seems like a waste of time for both sides.  

I agree with you. That is why I argue that in the history of CRT there has been a Preclassic, Classic, and Postclassic phase. The Postclassic Phase began around 2002 and has been the dominant phase, outside of law schools ever since. It is the Postclassic phase of CRT with which I have issues. It is a huge change from the Classic phase of the 50s-90s. Just my perspective. I never heard of Professor Bybee. I will have to read the link.

[Ragerunner]

I realize I don’t control this thread. But one item I asked on my first post was for us not to use this thread to debate CRT again. 
While I understand it’s place in these debates and it’s the hottest new political potato to throw around, it didn’t go well for the last thread.

There is so much more to discuss on racism in America, beyond CRT.

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

There is so much more to discuss on racism in America, beyond CRT.

I sincerely wish you luck in convincing everyone of that.

That is not a joke. It would make me very happy.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

I don’t see it as utopian goal. I see it as the purpose of life. We all succeed and fail at different levels and at different times in our life.

But the goal is to get up the next day and try and be a little better.

I still have enough faith in humanity that most people still are trying to be a better person.

Most people don't have time to try to be a better person.  Instead they are barely able to get by, and (as in Ukraine and other hot spots) are barely able to survive.  There is a dog eat dog world out there.  Those in the highly developed world often miss that fact simply because they are not starving to death or running from pursuers.  Out of sight, out of mind.