Definition of Critical Race Theory

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Definition of Critical Race Theory

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Here is an interesting take on 'What is Critical Race Theory'.

A simple definition of critical race theory that everyone can understand.
Dr. Karlyn Borysenko
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxKUksJ5kA0

https://twitter.com/DrKarlynB/status/14 ... 7354386436

I have done extensive research on Critical Race Theory, tracing it to Critical Theory and the term 'critical' to Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason via Marx. So I can agree in general with Borysenko.

.............Here's her definition of what is Critical Race Theory, plus some commentary on it...
  • Critical Race Theory is an ideology started in academia in the 70s that says racism exists everywhere - in every person and system - and the job of the critical theorist is to assess HOW (not if) racism occurred in any circumstance. Racism is always ASSUMED to have occurred.

    Another way to think of critical race theory is this:
    It's [CRT is] the opposite of what Martin Luther King preached. It's the idea that we should judge people on the basis of their race, that someone's race is the only thing that matters about them, not the content of their character.
    [/color]

    So why is all of this [CRT] problematic,
    as the kids say. When you start with a conclusion - that racism has occurred - and work your way back from that conclusion, that's confirmation bias.
    You'll only look at information that supports your conclusion.

    If you are LOOKING for racism in everything, you will inevitably FIND racism in everything.
    You will misconstrue the most innocent thing as being a symbol of racism.
    You will also ignore data that contradicts your point, so you're not showing the full spectrum of information.

    All that leads to the conclusion being confirmed. And anyone who disagrees with you or points out all the information you ignored is fragile. When you start with the conclusion, you leave no room for a real THEORY to develop.
.................end
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Definition of Critical Race Theory

Post by Age »

Good.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Definition of Critical Race Theory

Post by Gary Childress »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 5:29 am Critical Race Theory is an ideology started in academia in the 70s that says racism exists everywhere - in every person and system - and the job of the critical theorist is to assess HOW (not if) racism occurred in any circumstance. Racism is always ASSUMED to have occurred.

Another way to think of critical race theory is this:
It's [CRT is] the opposite of what Martin Luther King preached. It's the idea that we should judge people on the basis of their race, that someone's race is the only thing that matters about them, not the content of their character.
If they want to say that all people are racists or else that race doesn't exist (or whatever they want to put in their little "theory") I'm fine with any of that but to say that only whites are racist is just creating a one-way street whereby no compromise or mutual understanding can be reached. We just get tied to a whipping post and that's no better than tying people of color to a whipping post. Two wrongs don't seem to me to make a right.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Definition of Critical Race Theory

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Gary Childress wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 8:38 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 5:29 am Critical Race Theory is an ideology started in academia in the 70s that says racism exists everywhere - in every person and system - and the job of the critical theorist is to assess HOW (not if) racism occurred in any circumstance. Racism is always ASSUMED to have occurred.

Another way to think of critical race theory is this:
It's [CRT is] the opposite of what Martin Luther King preached. It's the idea that we should judge people on the basis of their race, that someone's race is the only thing that matters about them, not the content of their character.
If they want to say that all people are racists or else that race doesn't exist (or whatever they want to put in their little "theory") I'm fine with any of that
but to say that only whites are racist is just creating a one-way street whereby no compromise or mutual understanding can be reached. We just get tied to a whipping post and that's no better than tying people of color to a whipping post. Two wrongs don't seem to me to make a right.
That is why the 'CRT' or "CRTism" label is now a very toxic ideology.
The CRTists and their apologists are ignorantly and stupidly trying to rely on a more toxic racism to resolve general racism [on a downtrend at present] which may have some apparent effects but will never resolve any issue or racism in the longer run.
gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Definition of Critical Race Theory

Post by gaffo »

Gary Childress wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 8:38 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 5:29 am Critical Race Theory is an ideology started in academia in the 70s that says racism exists everywhere - in every person and system - and the job of the critical theorist is to assess HOW (not if) racism occurred in any circumstance. Racism is always ASSUMED to have occurred.

Another way to think of critical race theory is this:
It's [CRT is] the opposite of what Martin Luther King preached. It's the idea that we should judge people on the basis of their race, that someone's race is the only thing that matters about them, not the content of their character.
If they want to say that all people are racists or else that race doesn't exist (or whatever they want to put in their little "theory") I'm fine with any of that but to say that only whites are racist is just creating a one-way street whereby no compromise or mutual understanding can be reached. We just get tied to a whipping post and that's no better than tying people of color to a whipping post. Two wrongs don't seem to me to make a right.
asimple understadnign of Uganda in the 1970's shows there is no color to rascism.fk CRT.

Ruwanda anyone?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Definition of Critical Race Theory

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:04 am
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 8:38 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 5:29 am Critical Race Theory is an ideology started in academia in the 70s that says racism exists everywhere - in every person and system - and the job of the critical theorist is to assess HOW (not if) racism occurred in any circumstance. Racism is always ASSUMED to have occurred.

Another way to think of critical race theory is this:
It's [CRT is] the opposite of what Martin Luther King preached. It's the idea that we should judge people on the basis of their race, that someone's race is the only thing that matters about them, not the content of their character.
If they want to say that all people are racists or else that race doesn't exist (or whatever they want to put in their little "theory") I'm fine with any of that
but to say that only whites are racist is just creating a one-way street whereby no compromise or mutual understanding can be reached. We just get tied to a whipping post and that's no better than tying people of color to a whipping post. Two wrongs don't seem to me to make a right.
That is why the 'CRT' or "CRTism" label is now a very toxic ideology.
The CRTists and their apologists are ignorantly and stupidly trying to rely on a more toxic racism to resolve general racism
Oh, you're giving them WAAAAY to much credit, VA. They don't want to "resolve" anything. They certainly don't want racism ever to disappear. They would be horrified if it ever did.

They want it to be perpetual, because they need an enemy to fight...otherwise, they're totally irrelevant. That's why they opt for this nebulous, unlocatable thing called "systemic racism," instead of specific racism of specific people. If it were specific racism of specific people, we could cure it very quickly, simply by getting rid of the person or their bad attitude. And then we'd have absolutely no more need for CRT. But if the racism they present themselves as the cure of is "systemic," then it's in everything, and can never be located and removed. They have a perpetual enemy to hate, and a perpetual reason to exist and preen themselves as "liberators" and "illuminators."

Hating racism is their lifeblood, the source of their status, their reason to exist. So paradoxically, the last thing CRT types want is for the world to have no more racism. And if they can't find any, they'll keep inventing it, imagining it, inventing things so small you can't find them, like "unconscious bias," "accidental racism," "microaggression," "microinsults," "microinvalidations" and even "microassaults." And when there's no evidence, they'll cry "devoicing," "denial of personal truth" or "systemic," and keep going.

No, the last thing CRT folks want is for racism ever to end. For them, racism must last forever.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Definition of Critical Race Theory

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:31 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:04 am
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 8:38 pm

If they want to say that all people are racists or else that race doesn't exist (or whatever they want to put in their little "theory") I'm fine with any of that
but to say that only whites are racist is just creating a one-way street whereby no compromise or mutual understanding can be reached. We just get tied to a whipping post and that's no better than tying people of color to a whipping post. Two wrongs don't seem to me to make a right.
That is why the 'CRT' or "CRTism" label is now a very toxic ideology.
The CRTists and their apologists are ignorantly and stupidly trying to rely on a more toxic racism to resolve general racism
Oh, you're giving them WAAAAY to much credit, VA. They don't want to "resolve" anything. They certainly don't want racism ever to disappear. They would be horrified if it ever did.

They want it to be perpetual, because they need an enemy to fight...otherwise, they're totally irrelevant. That's why they opt for this nebulous, unlocatable thing called "systemic racism," instead of specific racism of specific people. If it were specific racism of specific people, we could cure it very quickly, simply by getting rid of the person or their bad attitude. And then we'd have absolutely no more need for CRT. But if the racism they present themselves as the cure of is "systemic," then it's in everything, and can never be located and removed. They have a perpetual enemy to hate, and a perpetual reason to exist and preen themselves as "liberators" and "illuminators."

Hating racism is their lifeblood, the source of their status, their reason to exist. So paradoxically, the last thing CRT types want is for the world to have no more racism. And if they can't find any, they'll keep inventing it, imagining it, inventing things so small you can't find them, like "unconscious bias," "accidental racism," "microaggression," "microinsults," "microinvalidations" and even "microassaults." And when there's no evidence, they'll cry "devoicing," "denial of personal truth" or "systemic," and keep going.

No, the last thing CRT folks want is for racism ever to end. For them, racism must last forever.
I agree with the above and it reflect my above point, i.e.

"The CRTists and their apologists are ignorantly and stupidly trying to rely on a more toxic racism to resolve general racism"

which imply they want racism to continue by relying on a more toxic form of racism.
Two wrongs will not make one right especially when the 2nd wrong is much worst.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Definition of Critical Race Theory

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:11 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:31 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:04 am
That is why the 'CRT' or "CRTism" label is now a very toxic ideology.
The CRTists and their apologists are ignorantly and stupidly trying to rely on a more toxic racism to resolve general racism
Oh, you're giving them WAAAAY to much credit, VA. They don't want to "resolve" anything. They certainly don't want racism ever to disappear. They would be horrified if it ever did.

They want it to be perpetual, because they need an enemy to fight...otherwise, they're totally irrelevant. That's why they opt for this nebulous, unlocatable thing called "systemic racism," instead of specific racism of specific people. If it were specific racism of specific people, we could cure it very quickly, simply by getting rid of the person or their bad attitude. And then we'd have absolutely no more need for CRT. But if the racism they present themselves as the cure of is "systemic," then it's in everything, and can never be located and removed. They have a perpetual enemy to hate, and a perpetual reason to exist and preen themselves as "liberators" and "illuminators."

Hating racism is their lifeblood, the source of their status, their reason to exist. So paradoxically, the last thing CRT types want is for the world to have no more racism. And if they can't find any, they'll keep inventing it, imagining it, inventing things so small you can't find them, like "unconscious bias," "accidental racism," "microaggression," "microinsults," "microinvalidations" and even "microassaults." And when there's no evidence, they'll cry "devoicing," "denial of personal truth" or "systemic," and keep going.

No, the last thing CRT folks want is for racism ever to end. For them, racism must last forever.
I agree with the above and it reflect my above point, i.e.

"The CRTists and their apologists are ignorantly and stupidly trying to rely on a more toxic racism to resolve general racism"
I was pointing out that your word "resolve" was far too generous to them. They have no desire to "resolve" racism. They want it to continue. They want it perpetual.

And they aren't "ignorant" or "stupid" about that. They know they're perpetuating racism. They have to. Without it, they're nothing.
Post Reply