Nov 30, 2021 04:09 AM
(This post was last modified: Dec 1, 2021 02:20 AM by C C.)
What is critical race theory?
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/421AKguZS3s
Karl Marx (the father of systemic oppression conspiracies): "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."
- - - - - -
re: Critical race theory can be misused, like anything else in science. (Hontas Farmer)
https://www.science20.com/hontas_farmer/...nce-255800
Hontas Farmer says that people misunderstand what CRT is -- what it is and what it is not. However, the axioms she presents seem to bolster that these confused people have its intellectual descent more or less pegged correctly.
At the very start she refers to CRT as a science: "Critical Race Theory like so much science, even social science, can be used for good or evil."
This ideological orientation is no more a science than its distant ancestor of Marxist philosophy was (that paraded under critical, socioeconomic analysis). As the video above points out: "It starts with the assumption that _X_ took place, and then goes looking for it to justify its own assumption. It’s kind of like the scientific method, but backwards." CRT also indulges in a pre-scientific or exo-scientific treatment of anecdotes as facts or valid data -- whereas science pursues/respects vetted evidence.
She asserts that CRT can be used for good or evil (again, the science comparisons: "Physics invented the atomic bomb which can destroy the world.") But when the very heart of CRT is its operational conviction that oppression systematically pervades all "cultural norms, institutional rules, and laws and regulations ... is embedded within social systems and institutions"... Then the end road is going to be at least the incremental, if not sudden (revolutionary), dismantling of the institutional foundations of the United States.
Which was its intellectual ancestor's solution, as well, for the existing system of oppression applicable to a country. The last paragraph of the Manifesto declares the goals of the Left's cultural hegemony fixations can only be attained only by "the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions". ["Political Nihilism ... is associated with the belief that the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious order is a prerequisite for any future improvement." -- IEP, Nihilism entry]
She admits that CRT could potentially be used as a weapon (evil), as a tool to foment retaliation or revolution (as in Marxist tradition's aims). But highlights its potential good: "...it could also be used to allow people to find, and analyze inequalities, as demonstrated via inequities, in society."
Recruiting her mention of "atomic bomb" as metaphor: Even if there was a possibility of "good" coming from having an active nuclear bomb being placed on display in a town square... How likely is that outcome as opposed to the device being used nefariously? If there's a snake in the baby rabbit pen -- that is simply adhering to its nature rather than being inherently evil or good -- are its ensuing actions going to be interpretable as "good" to the affected parties?
IOW, how much good historically came from Marxism's similar obsession with oppression? If a movement is imbued with that kind of cognitive filter (a hammer), which interprets injustice oozing from every pore of civilization (a nail), then traditionally these ideologies seem to prefer hitting that offence -- injustice/oppression being the Left's bogyman of choice which it methodically projects on an establishment -- rather than having sweet dialogues.
With respect to the video above, she writes: "Here is a video about CRT from America Uncovered / China Uncensored a channel I support on Patreon and Locals even though I disagree with them on this issue. Their work covering the excesses and evils of the Chinese Communist Party are very important. If one thinks that the above is just liberal or leftist the below video is NOT by leftist."
Well, the views of CRT are certainly not liberal because CRT considers liberalism and its color-blindness approach (among other items) to be part of the systemic oppression (more on this further down).
It is Leftism -- going back even before Marxism to the Jacobin elements of the French Revolution -- that is monomaniacally fixated on oppression. That exploits the latter to serve the power ascension of its own intellectual class. Whether it has to do with the class struggles of old (proles, peasants) or the expansion to new population group struggles, that occurred during the era of the New Left.
Critique of liberalism: CRT legal scholars in 1993 [...] critiqued "liberal jurisprudence" including affirmative action, color-blindness, role modeling, and the merit principle. They said that the liberal concept—value-neutral law— contributed to maintenance of the U.S. racially unjust social order.
Here's the video excerpt applicable to this:
Tenet 2: Colorblindness is disguised racism.
Do you think we shouldn't judge people based on the color of their skin? Do you believe in racial equality? You’re probably a racist. That’s right. If you’re “colorblind,” you’re a racist.
I’m looking at you, dogs. According to the book, “Color-blind, or ‘formal,’ conceptions of equality,” in other words “rules that insist only on treatment that is the same across the board,” doesn’t actually solve racism at a fundamental level. That’s because of what the authors call “interest convergence.” The concept originally comes from Derrick Bell, the first black tenured Harvard Law School professor and the founding father of CRT.
“Interest convergence” is a highbrow way of saying that white people will only help non-whites if it helps them as well. So if non-whites advance two steps, whites also make sure they themselves advance two steps. This way, non-whites always stay behind. It’s the only foot race whites actually win over non-whites.
Now you might be asking yourself, wasn’t the Civil Rights Movement, which included people of every race in America, successful in bringing down the racist Jim Crow system? Derrick Bell didn’t think so. Y’know, the founding father of Critical Race Theory?
In this article, Bell writes that desegregation focuses on “creating a discrimination-free environment,” but that doing so “has become increasingly ineffective.” So he argues for “the creation or preservation of model black schools.” He also talks about a “potentially troublesome lack of sympathy for racial separateness as a possible expression of group solidarity.”
So “racial segregation” is bad, but “racial separateness” is good? I’m sure it’ll be fine, as long as it’s separate but equal.
Interest convergence essentially blows up the political philosophy upon which the US legal system is based: Liberalism.
Critical Race Theory says due process, equal treatment under the law, rationalism, reason over emotion, and objectivity are actually a centuries-long confidence game perpetrated by whites against non-whites.
So even if whites become true believers in Critical race theory, become “anti-racist,” and spend literally every waking moment trying to fight racism, by default they must be advancing their own interests, which maintains their own dominance over non-whites and makes racism impossible to root out and defeat as long as whites are involved.
Put simply, everything whites do to combat racism actually *promotes* racism, merely because whites are the ones who are doing it, thus “whiteness” *is* racism.
- - - - - -
RELATED (scivillage): Why are race problems in the United States so intractable?
Enlightenment liberalism is losing ground in the debate about race (a new ideology is emerging): "Liberalism -- the Enlightenment philosophy, not the American left -- starts with the assertion that all human beings have equal moral worth. From that stem equal rights for all. Libertarians see those principles as paramount. For left-leaning liberals, equal moral worth also brings an entitlement to the resources necessary for an individual to flourish. [...] Critical race theorists might point out that there are many sorts of oppression."
"Many sorts", indeed. The nugget of absurdity in the excerpt above is the idea that CRT is a "new ideology". A perpetual attachment to systemic oppression -- and opportunistically crusading against such to achieve its own empowerment -- has always been the backbone of the Left.Karl Marx (the father of systemic oppression conspiracies): "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."
- - - - - -
re: Critical race theory can be misused, like anything else in science. (Hontas Farmer)
https://www.science20.com/hontas_farmer/...nce-255800
Hontas Farmer says that people misunderstand what CRT is -- what it is and what it is not. However, the axioms she presents seem to bolster that these confused people have its intellectual descent more or less pegged correctly.
At the very start she refers to CRT as a science: "Critical Race Theory like so much science, even social science, can be used for good or evil."
This ideological orientation is no more a science than its distant ancestor of Marxist philosophy was (that paraded under critical, socioeconomic analysis). As the video above points out: "It starts with the assumption that _X_ took place, and then goes looking for it to justify its own assumption. It’s kind of like the scientific method, but backwards." CRT also indulges in a pre-scientific or exo-scientific treatment of anecdotes as facts or valid data -- whereas science pursues/respects vetted evidence.
She asserts that CRT can be used for good or evil (again, the science comparisons: "Physics invented the atomic bomb which can destroy the world.") But when the very heart of CRT is its operational conviction that oppression systematically pervades all "cultural norms, institutional rules, and laws and regulations ... is embedded within social systems and institutions"... Then the end road is going to be at least the incremental, if not sudden (revolutionary), dismantling of the institutional foundations of the United States.
Which was its intellectual ancestor's solution, as well, for the existing system of oppression applicable to a country. The last paragraph of the Manifesto declares the goals of the Left's cultural hegemony fixations can only be attained only by "the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions". ["Political Nihilism ... is associated with the belief that the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious order is a prerequisite for any future improvement." -- IEP, Nihilism entry]
She admits that CRT could potentially be used as a weapon (evil), as a tool to foment retaliation or revolution (as in Marxist tradition's aims). But highlights its potential good: "...it could also be used to allow people to find, and analyze inequalities, as demonstrated via inequities, in society."
Recruiting her mention of "atomic bomb" as metaphor: Even if there was a possibility of "good" coming from having an active nuclear bomb being placed on display in a town square... How likely is that outcome as opposed to the device being used nefariously? If there's a snake in the baby rabbit pen -- that is simply adhering to its nature rather than being inherently evil or good -- are its ensuing actions going to be interpretable as "good" to the affected parties?
IOW, how much good historically came from Marxism's similar obsession with oppression? If a movement is imbued with that kind of cognitive filter (a hammer), which interprets injustice oozing from every pore of civilization (a nail), then traditionally these ideologies seem to prefer hitting that offence -- injustice/oppression being the Left's bogyman of choice which it methodically projects on an establishment -- rather than having sweet dialogues.
With respect to the video above, she writes: "Here is a video about CRT from America Uncovered / China Uncensored a channel I support on Patreon and Locals even though I disagree with them on this issue. Their work covering the excesses and evils of the Chinese Communist Party are very important. If one thinks that the above is just liberal or leftist the below video is NOT by leftist."
Well, the views of CRT are certainly not liberal because CRT considers liberalism and its color-blindness approach (among other items) to be part of the systemic oppression (more on this further down).
It is Leftism -- going back even before Marxism to the Jacobin elements of the French Revolution -- that is monomaniacally fixated on oppression. That exploits the latter to serve the power ascension of its own intellectual class. Whether it has to do with the class struggles of old (proles, peasants) or the expansion to new population group struggles, that occurred during the era of the New Left.
Critique of liberalism: CRT legal scholars in 1993 [...] critiqued "liberal jurisprudence" including affirmative action, color-blindness, role modeling, and the merit principle. They said that the liberal concept—value-neutral law— contributed to maintenance of the U.S. racially unjust social order.
Here's the video excerpt applicable to this:
Tenet 2: Colorblindness is disguised racism.
Do you think we shouldn't judge people based on the color of their skin? Do you believe in racial equality? You’re probably a racist. That’s right. If you’re “colorblind,” you’re a racist.
I’m looking at you, dogs. According to the book, “Color-blind, or ‘formal,’ conceptions of equality,” in other words “rules that insist only on treatment that is the same across the board,” doesn’t actually solve racism at a fundamental level. That’s because of what the authors call “interest convergence.” The concept originally comes from Derrick Bell, the first black tenured Harvard Law School professor and the founding father of CRT.
“Interest convergence” is a highbrow way of saying that white people will only help non-whites if it helps them as well. So if non-whites advance two steps, whites also make sure they themselves advance two steps. This way, non-whites always stay behind. It’s the only foot race whites actually win over non-whites.
Now you might be asking yourself, wasn’t the Civil Rights Movement, which included people of every race in America, successful in bringing down the racist Jim Crow system? Derrick Bell didn’t think so. Y’know, the founding father of Critical Race Theory?
In this article, Bell writes that desegregation focuses on “creating a discrimination-free environment,” but that doing so “has become increasingly ineffective.” So he argues for “the creation or preservation of model black schools.” He also talks about a “potentially troublesome lack of sympathy for racial separateness as a possible expression of group solidarity.”
So “racial segregation” is bad, but “racial separateness” is good? I’m sure it’ll be fine, as long as it’s separate but equal.
Interest convergence essentially blows up the political philosophy upon which the US legal system is based: Liberalism.
Critical Race Theory says due process, equal treatment under the law, rationalism, reason over emotion, and objectivity are actually a centuries-long confidence game perpetrated by whites against non-whites.
So even if whites become true believers in Critical race theory, become “anti-racist,” and spend literally every waking moment trying to fight racism, by default they must be advancing their own interests, which maintains their own dominance over non-whites and makes racism impossible to root out and defeat as long as whites are involved.
Put simply, everything whites do to combat racism actually *promotes* racism, merely because whites are the ones who are doing it, thus “whiteness” *is* racism.
- - - - - -
RELATED (scivillage): Why are race problems in the United States so intractable?