Tweet
CRT is trivial. Those who claim it isn't, haven't read it. There is no 'indoctrination of children' with CRT. It has been widely debunked when portrayed as scientific research but can be used as a tool to spark legitimate and sometimes uncomfortable conversation. It serves a purpose to discuss inequality, that's it. It currently is used by both black and white racists to feed red meat to their ideological brethren. Otherwise it remains theoretical banter, easily debunked. You might find .0001% of the population trying to use it as fact, and .0001% clutching their skirts about it.
Its origins started in the 60s and 70s. In the late 80s, it entered many law schools as an academic discussion in the application of laws and how law effects society as a whole. It wasn't until the 21st century that some special interest groups of color started promoting it as truthful doctrine that other special interest groups of non-color started screeching indoctrination of not special interest groups but as of the political opposition. We see that type of tribal bullshit in full swing today.
So what is CRT? Its first and foundational premise is that 'race' is not a matter of physiological, genetic, and cultural makeup that defines the stark characteristics of geologically oriented human variations. It says that 'race' is a social construct used to continue a process of maintaining a society that favors some over others. I have yet to see anything that proves this.
Let's use 'institutional racism' as an example. CRT argues that merit and neutrality is an illusion of opportunity, not an example of equality. Let's say Person A lives in the shittiest area of Detroit and attends a local high school there. Person A graduates with a 4.0 GPA and a top SAT score. Person B lives in the burbs and attends the International Academy and also gets a 4.0 and a top SAT score. Both A and B have put in the time and effort, both 4.0'd, and both aced the SAT. On the surface it seems both have performed exceeding well and both deserve entry into UM. But there are limited seats at UM and Person B gets the nod. Why? Because its only the 1st level of examination that seems fair, GPA and SAT scores. International Academy is considered a top school where Denby has anti-personnel wire strung around it to keep bad guys, worse than the student body, out. That becomes the deciding factor. There is no methodology in place that can show Person A would not have performed just as well at International Academy. They are simply a victim of where they lived and the given illusion of equal opportunity. That's how the charge of 'institutional racism' gets leveled. It's a pretty broad brush to be painting with. The real question is, how far to you drill down to ensure equal access?
CRT gets taken to extreme levels. I think by bigots on one side to get a rise out of bigots on the other side. A derivative of CRT is that CRT extends back to the beginning of time. Europeans came to NA with the express purpose of establishing a slave based economy. The Industrial Revolution was to make slaves more productive. Etc, etc, etc. All you can do is roll your eyes when you read it. Its blindingly obvious that it is only a theory to open sensitive issues up for meaningful discussion, discussions that rarely take place today. The rightwing-o-sphere uses it to scream "Hide the white women!!! THEY are coming!!!!", rather than maybe there's unaddressed issues that should be looked at. But why look if you are the beneficiary?
CRT is dull and boring as it uses suppositions as fact. Its overly simplistic like a high school debate topic. Once you actually read CRT, it opens your eyes to the real problems in America: tribal thinking at it's worst and illusionary equality felt by some segments of society. Its misused as an opportunity to screech, not to discuss.
If the right wants to hammer this as a political issue, they'll get pounded in the election as illiterate dufuses making much ado over nothing. The same people thinking CRT is a threat are the same people who think the KKK are heroes after watching A Birth of a Nation. Proponents of CRT are people looking for a cause celeb to devote themselves to, regardless of facts. Neither group does society much good.
And yes, the 1619 Project is pretty stupid.
Its origins started in the 60s and 70s. In the late 80s, it entered many law schools as an academic discussion in the application of laws and how law effects society as a whole. It wasn't until the 21st century that some special interest groups of color started promoting it as truthful doctrine that other special interest groups of non-color started screeching indoctrination of not special interest groups but as of the political opposition. We see that type of tribal bullshit in full swing today.
So what is CRT? Its first and foundational premise is that 'race' is not a matter of physiological, genetic, and cultural makeup that defines the stark characteristics of geologically oriented human variations. It says that 'race' is a social construct used to continue a process of maintaining a society that favors some over others. I have yet to see anything that proves this.
Let's use 'institutional racism' as an example. CRT argues that merit and neutrality is an illusion of opportunity, not an example of equality. Let's say Person A lives in the shittiest area of Detroit and attends a local high school there. Person A graduates with a 4.0 GPA and a top SAT score. Person B lives in the burbs and attends the International Academy and also gets a 4.0 and a top SAT score. Both A and B have put in the time and effort, both 4.0'd, and both aced the SAT. On the surface it seems both have performed exceeding well and both deserve entry into UM. But there are limited seats at UM and Person B gets the nod. Why? Because its only the 1st level of examination that seems fair, GPA and SAT scores. International Academy is considered a top school where Denby has anti-personnel wire strung around it to keep bad guys, worse than the student body, out. That becomes the deciding factor. There is no methodology in place that can show Person A would not have performed just as well at International Academy. They are simply a victim of where they lived and the given illusion of equal opportunity. That's how the charge of 'institutional racism' gets leveled. It's a pretty broad brush to be painting with. The real question is, how far to you drill down to ensure equal access?
CRT gets taken to extreme levels. I think by bigots on one side to get a rise out of bigots on the other side. A derivative of CRT is that CRT extends back to the beginning of time. Europeans came to NA with the express purpose of establishing a slave based economy. The Industrial Revolution was to make slaves more productive. Etc, etc, etc. All you can do is roll your eyes when you read it. Its blindingly obvious that it is only a theory to open sensitive issues up for meaningful discussion, discussions that rarely take place today. The rightwing-o-sphere uses it to scream "Hide the white women!!! THEY are coming!!!!", rather than maybe there's unaddressed issues that should be looked at. But why look if you are the beneficiary?
CRT is dull and boring as it uses suppositions as fact. Its overly simplistic like a high school debate topic. Once you actually read CRT, it opens your eyes to the real problems in America: tribal thinking at it's worst and illusionary equality felt by some segments of society. Its misused as an opportunity to screech, not to discuss.
If the right wants to hammer this as a political issue, they'll get pounded in the election as illiterate dufuses making much ado over nothing. The same people thinking CRT is a threat are the same people who think the KKK are heroes after watching A Birth of a Nation. Proponents of CRT are people looking for a cause celeb to devote themselves to, regardless of facts. Neither group does society much good.
And yes, the 1619 Project is pretty stupid.
Comment