Critical Race Theory policy in hiring at UT

[bad_teammate 13195]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I hate it when BT has an idea that is spot-on, but this is definitely a good one.

this sucks for you because I'm shitting diamonds basically 24/7

[Pancho 44763]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Change and conflict are basically brothers.

Conflict is good. Embrace it.

I never said conflict was all bad.  Hell, I teach an entire course on conflict and relationships.  

But to say CRT was thought of to create conflict isn’t correct.  

You can have similar features and personality characteristics of your own brother but you both aren’t the same person. 

[Brisketexan 105106]

1 minute ago, Pancho said:

I never said conflict was all bad.  Hell, I teach an entire course on conflict and relationships.  

But to say CRT was thought of to create conflict isn’t correct.  

You can have similar features and personality characteristics of your own brother but you both aren’t the same person. 

When you understand that "questioning the preferred narrative...which narrative is demonstrably false" = "conflict" in their minds, then you understand what they are talking about.

"This is a beautiful building.  It was built by slave labor, and the slaves are buried out back in unmarked graves."  That creates "conflict" to them.  "Why can't you just talk about the good?  That plantation home is beautiful, and it's a nice place to visit.  Why do you have to create conflict by pointing out that the plantation owners held people captive and made them work for them, then buried them out back without  even marking the grave?"  It's fucking pathetic snowflake-ism at it's worst.

Remember, when dealing with these folks, every accusation is a confession.  They are snowflakes, who literally -- like, by using the force of LAW -- want to "cancel" any discussion of teaching of a huge element of our history (summary of said element -- black people had it super shitty for 400 years or so, and things that were built up and entrenched over 400 years are not yet removed from our current systems).  It would be laughable if it wasn't so fucking dishonest, destructive, and flat-out mean.

[bad_teammate 13195]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

When you understand that "questioning the preferred narrative...which narrative is demonstrably false" = "conflict" in their minds, then you understand what they are talking about.

Is stating disagreement not conflict?

[Brisketexan 105106]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Is stating disagreement not conflict?

Bingo.  It's the functional equivalent of saying about a domestic abuser "don't tell him that you don't like being hit -- it will only make him angry."  Fuck him.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

48 minutes ago, Captainant said:

So your position is that it's divisive to be aware that racism is ordinary in America? Because it makes people upset to be aware of the inequality? And your solution is to ignore the inequality and hope that people are less divided, despite the inherently inequitable nature of racism?

That's some galaxy-brain shit. 

I'm making no claims or proposing solutions-- that is your projecting them on me. I'm merely stating that, based on what you prompted me to read (thank you again, btw), I had an "aha moment" on why this is a political hot button issue in Summer of 2021. It's an observation. Those generally come during the discovery and fact-finding phases before critically thinking about a solution.

edit to add: as usual, bad_teammate gets it, read his next post.

Edited June 11, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[DonkeyCigars 144]

50 minutes ago, Pancho said:

This isn’t called conflict, it’s called “change.”  Societal change. There’s a difference. CRT wasn’t thought of to purposely create conflict. 

There doesn't seem to be a difference. The change you are talking about is only going to happen through transfer of power. People aren't going to willfully change (as if 2016-today has taught us nothing). It will be an outcome of conflict.

By the way, not all conflict and tension is bad and there is constructive and positive conflict that leads to things like, ultimately, a transformation or change. Read any management book to find out more!

Edited June 11, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Also, on some level, the opposition to critical race theory is based in eliminating challenges to the idea of American Exceptionalism, which I think it’s safe to say CRT does pretty well.  

Many democrats in leadership positions (Biden, Pelosi, Feinstein, you know, the olds) still cling to the American Exceptionalism idea and it is becoming problematic in solving some of our current challenges IMO.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

45 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You're using "conflict" as a synonym for "discomfort" and "disruption of the status quo trajectory."  To which I would say.....fuck yes, and that's good.  That's the fucking point.  Conflict is not an end in and of itself, but we know that NOTHING will change WITHOUT conflict/discomfort.

The Civil Rights movement did not have success because it AVOIDED "conflict."  It succeeded because it put this sort of thing front-and-center to the rest of America, who had enough decency and humanity to say "huh, maybe we shouldn't do that sort of shit."  Not as much of the rest of America felt that way as we'd like....but enough of them eventually did.

 

Shit like that made a lot of Americans VERY uncomfortable.  They didn't like that "conflict."  Good.  It worked.

If we really think we're the country we CLAIM to be, we aren't in the "making people comfortable and avoiding conflict" business.  We started off by dumping the Brits' tea in the harbor, rebelling against the crown, and crossing a river on Christmas to kill the enemy in their sleep.  Whenever we've wanted to improve our lot, some measure of conflict has been involved to get there.

So, you don't like it.  Tough fucking shit.  I say that to you like I'd have said it to Bull Connor.

We are on the same page right to the last line where you get emotional and lose control of your impulses again. Conflict can be good. Disruption can be good. Change can be good. Just depends on if you are the winner or the loser.

Since you seem to care about what I personally think of this now, as of the last month or so I would say that I've landed on the position that CRT is not my battle and I have no interest in fighting for or against CRT. If there is a sea change and this becomes the new thing, I'll go along to get along, as we all should do.

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

 

 

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

The clown show has arrived. 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

 

Titled "What do Conservatives fear about CRT". I read the article. Seems like there is nothing facially to fear. I think people are less scared of public schools corrupting their individual children and turning them in progressives or liberals, but they are more scared of what it could turn into; what it could inspire.

Isn't that why ideas are always so dangerous? A spark here, a small fire there, a conflagration eventually, if lucky.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/what-do-conservatives-fear-about-critical-race-theory

Quote

Since the January 6th insurrection, Republicans on the national level have been a little low on talking points and shock material. That is not the case in state legislatures and on cable television, where conservatives have been vigorously denouncing the influence of critical race theory, a scholarly movement ascendent during the nineties, the adherents of which argue that white supremacy is encoded in law and in the structure of American institutions. These conservatives have noticed that concepts used in critical race theory—“structural racism,” “internalized white supremacy”—have entered the mainstream, and in some cases have become part of corporate training or public-school education. A center-right policy journal has reported that third-grade students in Cupertino, California, are being asked to rank themselves according to their power and privilege, and that white male executives at Lockheed Martin, of all places, were asked to examine their racial and gender privileges. Like in Texas, conservatives in nearly a dozen other state legislatures have introduced bills with very similar language, with the apparent goal of keeping the idea of enduring structural racism as far from schools as possible.

 

[UncleSonny 6572]

6 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Since you seem to care about what I personally think of this now, as of the last month or so I would say that I've landed on the position that CRT is not my battle and I have no interest in fighting for or against CRT. If there is a sea change and this becomes the new thing, I'll go along to get along, as we all should do.

Honest question and sorry if it has been covered. Do you have children and do you teach them or talk to them about CRT aspects in your own household? Without actually calling it "critical race theory" of course. 

You seem to have generally come around to many of the aspects of CRT as outlined in that twitter thread and other places but don't feel like it's worth the trouble because it's too divisive and won't effect any change in your view. I'm curious if you see value in your own child having a basic understanding of it.

Edited June 11, 2021 by UncleSonny

[TwiceHorn 31456]

7 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I didn't say you had the attitude.

On the issue, though, that dissatisfaction can manifest in different ways.

"I can't find the answer right now so I'm frustrated because I don't like valid questions being unanswered" vs "I can't find the answer right now so I'm frustrated and think the question itself is invalid as a result". I'm imagining you're more on the former side, yes? Just my presumption.

More the first yes.  Definitely not the second. I'm a dude, an engineer and an engineer lawyer.  Problem solving is just built into me.  Don't know if it's nature or nurture or probably both as it usually is.  Something that just finds a bunch of problems without offering or at least suggesting solutions kind of frustrates me.  I irritate women that way, and they irritate me.

I think that's why I like AOC and Liz Warren.  They're throwing solutions out there for what I see as real problems.  I don't always agree 100% with the solution, but give them loads of credit for thinking about it.  And Warren's solutions are always interesting.

[TwiceHorn 31456]

17 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

 

Titled "What do Conservatives fear about CRT". I read the article. Seems like there is nothing facially to fear. I think people are less scared of public schools corrupting their individual children and turning them in progressives or liberals, but they are more scared of what it could turn into; what it could inspire.

Isn't that why ideas are always so dangerous? A spark here, a small fire there, a conflagration eventually, if lucky.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/what-do-conservatives-fear-about-critical-race-theory

 

Well, the whole "slippery slope" thing is both a real problem in some cases, and a complete boogeyman in others.  It's real when differentiating the "sublime" from the "ridiculous" is hard to do.  That's not really the case here.  So I tend to think it's a boogeyman.

Additionally, the type of conservative that Trump has empowered has argued that librul teechin in public skools has been ruinin our chillun for 25 years now.  This fits right in with that.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

1 hour ago, UncleSonny said:

Honest question and sorry if it has been covered. Do you have children and do you teach them or talk to them about CRT aspects in your own household? Without actually calling it "critical race theory" of course. 

You seem to have generally come around to many of the aspects of CRT as outlined in that twitter thread and other places but don't feel like it's worth the trouble because it's too divisive and won't effect any change in your view. I'm curious if you see value in your own child having a basic understanding of it.

Yes my wife and I have kids and yes we are raising them in our values and beliefs. I specifically try and avoid hot button topics and generally talking “politics” at home. Our worldview is one that deprioritizes politics and the state. We live in society because we have to; go along to get along, etc. but try and not be corrupted by the insanity that prevails all around us, on both sides.

I do see value in my child understanding history and critical perspectives beyond the privileged lens. I think it’s valuable in that it helps to fill out more comprehensive thinking and understanding, I think it helps to develop intelligence (both knowledge/trivial and EQ/soft skills) and just generally well rounds them for being successful in life where you have to engage and interact and build relationships with all kinds, colors and stripes. You don’t have to agree, but you have to respect or, if you can’t do that, avoid.

But I also think there is value in drilling into what privilege in America is and having kids be grateful and appreciative of the privilege they’ve inherited and to steward it well for their children and lineage.

Hope that helps. And I’d be curious to hear your perspective. Do you have kids? Do you believe it’s important? How are you tackling these issues?

I don’t know about you, but nobody handed me a handbook when we left the hospital so I’m the first person to admit I don’t know everything and maybe can learn from you. Certainly not too proud, in any case.

[UncleSonny 6572]

I appreciate the response, it wasn’t meant to be a gotcha or prying question by any means. 

You saying you weren’t for or against it in schools and would go whichever way the wind blew was surprising and in your response: 

1 hour ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I do see value in my child understanding history and critical perspectives beyond the privileged lens. I think it’s valuable in that it helps to fill out more comprehensive thinking and understanding, I think it helps to develop intelligence...

I generally agree with this and I have a hard time squaring that with you being ambivalent about providing that perspective to children in schools. There is a line to what a school can and should teach children about, but I think a critical look at American history (concerning race or anything else) falls squarely inbounds. If it’s valuable to your children it must be valuable to all children and not everyone’s parents will have the capacity or the interest in giving them that critical perspective. 

As for me personally, I do have two daughters. One is 3 years old and the other is 1 month so the way I handle these things is more theoretical based on my own bullshit than real application my wife and I have put into practice. That said my 3yo’s room is filled with children’s books that have a decidedly political slant. 

I don’t think I’ll ever make a conscious choice to avoid hot-button issues or politics in the house. Mostly the opposite. Hopefully they have an interest and I can push them on things and they’ll push back on my bullshit when advocating for their own beliefs. (This is probably where people with older kids are laughing at how naive I am). Indoctrination isn’t something I have any interest in either. 

I appreciate the desire to de-emphasize politics and the state at home but in my opinion being comfortable making that decision for your family is privilege. I have two daughters and my wife immigrated here from Iran as a child. I’m not sure if that is a privilege I can afford my family and I don’t think I would want to if I could. That doesn’t have to mean cable news and the national outrage story of the week though. Being involved on a state and municipal level is something we have talked a lot about instilling in the girls.

Like you, I’m making this shit up as I go. I’m not at all confident in even small parenting decisions, let alone the large ones. A lot of times parents seem to be reacting to the way that they were raised, and I was raised pretty sheltered and very privileged. So I guess if I’m going to make mistakes it will be erring on the side of making sure my daughters aren’t naive to the world, for better or worse. 

 

[elfenix 34236]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

the type of conservative that Trump has empowered has argued that librul teechin in public skools has been ruinin our chillun for 25 years now.  This fits right in with that.

there were somber and serious people in this country's history who believed that public education violated the first amendment.  this shit doesn't go back just 25 years. 

[StassneyHorn 6575]

I had teachers who parroted every Rush Limbaugh talking point at UTSA and every rebuttal from MSNBC the next semester.

When I got to UT it became painfully clear I couldn’t just write what I thought the prof wanted to hear as a Government and History major. Most people never get past the minimum 6 total hours and never think of it again. We have great professors at UT and most of you will have never heard of them cause you are very clearly stupid.

 

Edited June 12, 2021 by StassneyHorn

[TwiceHorn 31456]

1 hour ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Yes my wife and I have kids and yes we are raising them in our values and beliefs. I specifically try and avoid hot button topics and generally talking “politics” at home. Our worldview is one that deprioritizes politics and the state. We live in society because we have to; go along to get along, etc. but try and not be corrupted by the insanity that prevails all around us, on both sides.

I do see value in my child understanding history and critical perspectives beyond the privileged lens. I think it’s valuable in that it helps to fill out more comprehensive thinking and understanding, I think it helps to develop intelligence (both knowledge/trivial and EQ/soft skills) and just generally well rounds them for being successful in life where you have to engage and interact and build relationships with all kinds, colors and stripes. You don’t have to agree, but you have to respect or, if you can’t do that, avoid.

But I also think there is value in drilling into what privilege in America is and having kids be grateful and appreciative of the privilege they’ve inherited and to steward it well for their children and lineage.

Hope that helps. And I’d be curious to hear your perspective. Do you have kids? Do you believe it’s important? How are you tackling these issues?

I don’t know about you, but nobody handed me a handbook when we left the hospital so I’m the first person to admit I don’t know everything and maybe can learn from you. Certainly not too proud, in any case.

Don't have kids so can't speak with real authority.

I generally agree that avoiding partisan politics is probably a good idea, to the extent that's a "hot-button" topic.

But I think it's probably wise to explain issues to kids even if they are "hot-button" topics, but not do so in a "hot-button" way.  To do that does require an ability to set aside one's partisanship and that may be hard to do for some people, but it's probably a valuable exercise.

The thing that irks me, though, is this is an artificial hot-button issue.  It's made so by the current GOP that plays politics by culture war.

The issue of understanding our racial history and how remnants of it persist should not be a political issue, or even a controversial one.

[Message Board User 12395]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[StassneyHorn 6575]

I’ve mostly stayed out of this topic, but is there any way some of you law dudes can get Lucas Powe to do a podcast? I miss his voice and don’t want to be the guy in class who is clearly not in the class.

[washparkhorn 9939]

1 hour ago, StassneyHorn said:

I’ve mostly stayed out of this topic, but is there any way some of you law dudes can get Lucas Powe to do a podcast? I miss his voice and don’t want to be the guy in class who is clearly not in the class.

That would be cool to hear. He came directly from 1971 to Texas. 

(He clerked for Douglas - the fiercest civil libertarian to dignify the Supreme Court with authority/Black was his better half. Douglas' opinions were criticized for, inter alia, giving excess weight to circumstances on the ground, in real life. As the old adage goes, when one has nothing else - attack the grammar. Douglas was also known to be a terribly surly human.)

[TwiceHorn 31456]

Powe isn't really a Crit though.  Or at least he wasn't.

[Pancho 44763]

22 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

There doesn't seem to be a difference. The change you are talking about is only going to happen through transfer of power. People aren't going to willfully change (as if 2016-today has taught us nothing). It will be an outcome of conflict.

By the way, not all conflict and tension is bad and there is constructive and positive conflict that leads to things like, ultimately, a transformation or change. Read any management book to find out more!

If you don’t know the difference between societal change and conflict, then you need to give your diploma back. 

You also need to overnight your diploma back to whichever university if you’re claiming that change can only happen through a transfer of power.  That is unbelievably incorrect. There is not just 1 way societal change can happen. 

[Pancho 44763]

23 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

White guys outlawing the teaching of Critical Race Theory is Critical Race Theory in practice.  

It is so on the nose, it’s almost comical 

 

[Satchel 6938]

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

 

This verity is lost on those imposing bans because they have no idea what CRT is.

[Bruno Sardine 147]

There are black people outside the United States, no? Black people in Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Tunisia, Algeria, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, Columbia, Costa Rica and many other countries, correct? Are the disparities between blacks and non-blacks in economic outcomes, health outcomes, education outcomes, etc. unique to the United States or do we find the same disparities all over the world? (Rhetorical questions, so far.) 

For the record, I don’t believe the creator created inferior types/categories of humans based on outward physical characteristics, and my biological children aren’t white. I confess to not being terribly familiar with CRT, but as a universal lens through which to examine racial inequalities it seems limited, since these same inequalities are found the world over and CRT, as I understand it, applies specifically to America. But perhaps I’m mistaken. Happy to be enlightened.

[tchookem 3900]

Happy to be enlightened.

I don't believe you. [/burgandy.gif]

[elfenix 34236]

 

Last name does not check out

[GW Hayduke 1953]

52 minutes ago, Bruno Sardine said:

For the record, I don’t believe the creator created inferior types/categories of humans based on outward physical characteristics

I always feel the need to establish this when I enter a conversation that deals with race

[Brisketexan 105106]

There are black people outside the United States, no? Black people in Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Tunisia, Algeria, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, Columbia, Costa Rica and many other countries, correct? Are the disparities between blacks and non-blacks in economic outcomes, health outcomes, education outcomes, etc. unique to the United States or do we find the same disparities all over the world? (Rhetorical questions, so far.) 
For the record, I don’t believe the creator created inferior types/categories of humans based on outward physical characteristics, and my biological children aren’t white. I confess to not being terribly familiar with CRT, but as a universal lens through which to examine racial inequalities it seems limited, since these same inequalities are found the world over and CRT, as I understand it, applies specifically to America. But perhaps I’m mistaken. Happy to be enlightened.

In any given society, there is an “out group” (often more than one). In the US, and much of the Euro-centric West, black people are one of those out groups. Enslaved, exploited, abused, etc. The defining quality isn’t their blackness, it’s their “out group-ness.”

In Afghanistan, the out group is Hazars.
In Laos, it is the Hmong.
In turkey, it’s ethnic Armenians and Kurds.
In Russia….it’s lots of different minorities.

Hell, look at who “cheap, immigrant labor ruining everything” is in the UK: Poles and Eastern Europeans (whereas here, it’s Hispanics).

The situation of black Americans is not super unique, but it IS our shared situation. I’m not particularly responsible for, the beneficiary of, or capable of addressing the oppression of the Hmong. But all of those things apply with respect to my fellow Americans who happen to be black.

So, I continue to be baffled by people who are so freaked out and ANGRY about the mere acknowledgment of the fact that 400 years of American history is a history of 400 years of varyingly shitty treatment of black people, including the creation of institutions and mechanisms designed to perpetuate that, elements of which persist to the present day. I mean…that’s all just fucking obvious. And as for “action” that follows spotting those lingering problems, that’s not hard either: if all we do is simply keep our eyes open for instances of our own unconscious bias, or the same on the part of our peers/coworkers, that’s a whole lot. But it’s obviously too much to ask.

[Pancho 44763]

1 hour ago, Bruno Sardine said:

There are black people outside the United States, no? Black people in Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Tunisia, Algeria, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, Columbia, Costa Rica and many other countries, correct? Are the disparities between blacks and non-blacks in economic outcomes, health outcomes, education outcomes, etc. unique to the United States or do we find the same disparities all over the world? (Rhetorical questions, so far.) 

For the record, I don’t believe the creator created inferior types/categories of humans based on outward physical characteristics, and my biological children aren’t white. I confess to not being terribly familiar with CRT, but as a universal lens through which to examine racial inequalities it seems limited, since these same inequalities are found the world over and CRT, as I understand it, applies specifically to America. But perhaps I’m mistaken. Happy to be enlightened.

No, it does not apply only to Americans. 

[Bruno Sardine 147]

36 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

In any given society, there is an “out group” (often more than one). In the US, and much of the Euro-centric West, black people are one of those out groups. Enslaved, exploited, abused, etc. The defining quality isn’t their blackness, it’s their “out group-ness.”

In Afghanistan, the out group is Hazars.
In Laos, it is the Hmong.
In turkey, it’s ethnic Armenians and Kurds.
In Russia….it’s lots of different minorities.

Hell, look at who “cheap, immigrant labor ruining everything” is in the UK: Poles and Eastern Europeans (whereas here, it’s Hispanics).

The situation of black Americans is not super unique, but it IS our shared situation. I’m not particularly responsible for, the beneficiary of, or capable of addressing the oppression of the Hmong. But all of those things apply with respect to my fellow Americans who happen to be black.

So, I continue to be baffled by people who are so freaked out and ANGRY about the mere acknowledgment of the fact that 400 years of American history is a history of 400 years of varyingly shitty treatment of black people, including the creation of institutions and mechanisms designed to perpetuate that, elements of which persist to the present day. I mean…that’s all just fucking obvious. And as for “action” that follows spotting those lingering problems, that’s not hard either: if all we do is simply keep our eyes open for instances of our own unconscious bias, or the same on the part of our peers/coworkers, that’s a whole lot. But it’s obviously too much to ask.

Sure. Agreed. 

[Bruno Sardine 147]

22 minutes ago, Pancho said:

No, it does not apply only to Americans. 

Thanks. But I am under the impression that CRT involves extensive analysis of and  emphasis on topics such as the GI Bill and US government housing policies after World War II. Which is good, which certainly lends insight into the problems African-Americans have faced and continue to face in the USA. But it doesn't tell us much about other countries, does it? Or perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I am would point out parallel developments and policies in other societies. In the absence of someone's ability to do that and do it with specificity, I question the universality of CRT and would suggest that its adherents are somewhat provincial in their thinking. 

[Pancho 44763]

4 minutes ago, Bruno Sardine said:

Thanks. But I am under the impression that CRT involves extensive analysis of and  emphasis on topics such as the GI Bill and US government housing policies after World War II. Which is good, which certainly lends insight into the problems African-Americans have faced and continue to face in the USA. But it doesn't tell us much about other countries, does it? Or perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I am would point out parallel developments and policies in other societies. In the absence of someone's ability to do that and do it with specificity, I question the universality of CRT and would suggest that its adherents are somewhat provincial in their thinking. 

You do realize the analysis on other countries issues thru the lens of CRT has been written about and researched, right? Just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and therefore you should make baseless and incorrect claims as if they are fact to you.

Instead, you should do more research. It’s out there.

[Brisketexan 105106]

Thanks. But I am under the impression that CRT involves extensive analysis of and  emphasis on topics such as the GI Bill and US government housing policies after World War II. Which is good, which certainly lends insight into the problems African-Americans have faced and continue to face in the USA. But it doesn't tell us much about other countries, does it? Or perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I am would point out parallel developments and policies in other societies. In the absence of someone's ability to do that and do it with specificity, I question the universality of CRT and would suggest that its adherents are somewhat provincial in their thinking. 

Ummm….of course CRT, as it is examined in the US, is “provincial.” Kind of like our examination of history is. We learn a lot about our society and systems by studying our own history, as opposed to that of Armenia, for example.

That doesn’t mean that the approach doesn’t have broad application, or that there aren’t people taking that approach in other contexts.

Honestly, your criticism of it being “provincial” is nonsensical.

[Captainant 27660]

Lol y'all trying to get actual discussion out of a crusty old sock account

[Bruno Sardine 147]

27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Ummm….of course CRT, as it is examined in the US, is “provincial.” Kind of like our examination of history is. We learn a lot about our society and systems by studying our own history, as opposed to that of Armenia, for example.

That doesn’t mean that the approach doesn’t have broad application, or that there aren’t people taking that approach in other contexts.

Honestly, your criticism of it being “provincial” is nonsensical.

Then you don’t understand my argument, which is no doubt my fault. Let’s take North Africa, because the societies are very different from ours and CRT does not apply there. Pick your country. Egypt, Tunisia, etc. There are racial disparities between blacks and non-blacks. Now, is it your position that this is just a coincidence? That the underlying causes of the plight of blacks in North Africa are wholly separate and distinct from the underlying causes of the plight of blacks in the USA?  That these are unrelated phenomena? Because that would be an absurd position to take. They are related phenomena. 

Now, if they are related phenomena, and you propose – as you propose here – to try to understand racial disparities in America, then the ideas you propose should be applicable to North Africa. Or anywhere else, I would argue, since the disparity between blacks and non-blacks is universal. Unlike CRT!. 

Surely you can see that. If you truly want to fix something, you have to have the right tools. This issue – the disparity between blacks and non-blacks – is a world-wide issue. Want to solve it? Come up with ideas that explain the disparity in global terms. CRT doesn’t do that. Therefore CRT is not going to take you very far in solving the issue. 
 

[elfenix 34236]

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

5 minutes ago, elfenix said:

I'm having an internal dialogue similar to yours between this:

and this:

[Bama Chick 28596]

lol Y’all arguing Donkey’s sock account.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

7 hours ago, Pancho said:

If you don’t know the difference between societal change and conflict, then you need to give your diploma back. 

You also need to overnight your diploma back to whichever university if you’re claiming that change can only happen through a transfer of power.  That is unbelievably incorrect. There is not just 1 way societal change can happen. 

I thought I was clear that I was talking about our current situation in America and not theories.

Edited June 12, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[GW Hayduke 1953]

1 hour ago, Bruno Sardine said:

CRT does not apply there

Why wouldn't it apply there?  You thinking it wouldn't apply in a country like Egypt makes me think you aren't aware of what CRT is.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Sometimes,  knowing that the intent of those trying to suppress some truths being talked about is coded language for trying to suppress someone(s) talking truth to power.

[Neonmoon 38129]

1 minute ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Sometimes,  knowing that the intent of those trying to suppress some truths being talked about is coded language for trying to suppress someone(s) talking truth to power.

[Bruno Sardine 147]

https://english.alaraby.co.uk/analysis/being-black-egypt

Read this article. Then try to argue, with a straight face, that the discrimination faced by blacks in Egypt is substantively different or distinct from the discrimination faced by African-Americans. 

Now tell me, with a straight face, that CRT can shed the least bit of light on this. You can’t do it. CRT most certainly constitutes a provincial perspective. It is narrow and can never achieve its aims. Though its aims, so far as I understand them, are laudable. 
 

Edited June 12, 2021 by Bruno Sardine

[tchookem 3900]

lol Y’all arguing Donkey’s sock account.

I thought Donkey was the sock account.

[Bruno Sardine 147]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

Why wouldn't it apply there?  You thinking it wouldn't apply in a country like Egypt makes me think you aren't aware of what CRT is.

I already said I didn't understand it well. But isn't the underlying idea that to understand and address the plight of African Americans you must first accept that the government and institutions of the United States were set up for the purpose of ensuring white hegemony? And that the United States remains a society founded on white supremacy? Is that not the thrust of CRT? One thing's for sure, the government and institutions of Egypt, for example, were not created by white supremacists for the purpose of perpetuating white supremacy. So I question CRT's utility as a universal paradigm.