So much disinformation is being spread gleefully, wantonly by people who are hating the idea of Critical Race Theory (CRT) being discussed or taught. In article after article from right wing sources, I see people gossiping and slandering CRT as being Marxist, Anti-American and a whole slew of attack words - the same words that were being used by white people against Martin Luther King, Jr 60 years ago.
In article after article, I see these white people/white conservatives criticizing it, dismissing it, even trying to outlaw it! ...and the one common denominator I'm seeing is that they usually aren't citing the actual theory. They just use attack words like "Marxist" in their efforts to Cancel Culture CRT. Ironically. When they do cite the actual words used by CRT promoters, it's always out of context. But generally speaking, they just don't even cite the actual theory.
This is, of course, stupidly wrong and part of the problem that remains from modern Trump conservatism.
[And I have to tell you that I am loathe to keep citing this miscreant, but he pretty perfectly sums up what has become of conservatism. Truth and facts don't matter. Attacks are good, repeated attacks are better... you repeat the attacks and the lies and name-calling enough times and some people will start believing the disinformation. At least, the useful idiots will. (Trump has gone on record as saying this deviant "positive thinking" strategy is part of what he embraces.) Just to be clear, Trump is not the cause of this cancer on modern conservatism - conservatives have brought it on themselves. But he is the epitome and poster boy for what has become of modern conservatism. /end rant.]
So, in an effort to battle this cancer on good, rational adult thinking, here is what CRT thinkers are actually saying. If you want to disagree with what they're saying, do it based on facts, not gossip and grade school attacks. Not the style of attacks and demonizations that white supremacists used against King and the Civil Rights movement.
++++++++
Principles of the CRT Practice
While recognizing the evolving and malleable nature of CRT, scholar Khiara Bridges outlines a few key tenets of CRT, including:
- Recognition that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed and socially significant. It recognizes that science (as demonstrated in the Human Genome Project) refutes the idea of biological racial differences. According to scholars Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, race is the product of social thought and is not connected to biological reality.
- Acknowledgement that racism is a normal feature of society and is embedded within systems and institutions, like the legal system, that replicate racial inequality. This dismisses the idea that racist incidents are aberrations but instead are manifestations of structural and systemic racism.
- Rejection of popular understandings about racism, such as arguments that confine racism to a few “bad apples.” CRT recognizes that racism is codified in law, embedded in structures, and woven into public policy. CRT rejects claims of meritocracy or “colorblindness.” CRT recognizes that it is the systemic nature of racism that bears primary responsibility for reproducing racial inequality.
- Recognition of the relevance of people’s everyday lives to scholarship. This includes embracing the lived experiences of people of color, including those preserved through storytelling, and rejecting deficit-informed research that excludes the epistemologies of people of color.
CRT does not define racism in the traditional manner as solely the
consequence of discrete irrational bad acts perpetrated by individuals
but is usually the unintended (but often foreseeable) consequence of
choices. It exposes the ways that racism is often cloaked in terminology
regarding “mainstream,” “normal,” or “traditional” values or “neutral”
policies, principles, or practices. And, as scholar Tara Yosso asserts,
CRT can be an approach used to theorize, examine, and challenge the ways
which race and racism implicitly and explicitly impact social
structures, practices, and discourses. CRT observes that scholarship
that ignores race is not demonstrating “neutrality” but adherence to the
existing racial hierarchy...
Foundational questions that underlie CRT and the law include: How does
the law construct race?; How has the law protected racism and upheld
racial hierarchies?; How does the law reproduce racial inequality?; and
How can the law be used to dismantle race, racism, and racial
inequality?
...Like any other approach, CRT can be misunderstood and misapplied. It has
been distorted and attacked. And it continues to change and evolve. The
hope in CRT is in its recognition that the same policies, structures,
and scholarship that can function to disenfranchise and oppress so many
also holds the potential to emancipate and empower many. It provides a
lens through which the civil rights lawyer can imagine a more just
nation.
From the ABA...
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/
+++++
"Critical race theory is a practice.
It's an approach to grappling with a
history of White supremacy that
rejects the belief that what's in the
past is in the past, and that
the laws and systems that grow from that
past are detached from it,"
said Kimberlé Crenshaw, a founding critical race theorist and a law professor who teaches at UCLA and Columbia University...
Crenshaw
notes that merely acknowledging the nation's history of racism has long
been vilified as unpatriotic and anti-American.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/01/us/critical-race-theory-explainer-trnd/index.html
+++++
If people want to talk about CRT, I'm fine with talking about it. But we should begin with discussions based on what the advocates of it are actually saying. If you're only citing sources that white supremacists would applaud, you're not doing your part as a responsible moral adult.
Strike a blow to tyranny. Let us reason like adults.
36 comments:
The question is, is Dan Trabue truly "fine" with talking about it, and can he do so without regarding every opposing expression as worthy of immediate deletion or without defaulting to regarding the comment or source as racist rather than focusing on and arguing against the point being expressed. I have absolutely no confidence you're truly capable of an honest discussion. Presuming one might only cite "sources that white supremacists would applaud" justifies my lack of confidence. Your comments at my most recent post alone indicate you're incapable of such a discussion as you accuse me there for exactly the reason I just stated...an inability to argue against the points I raised in favor of accusing me of racism.
So, what's it gonna be? Guarantee such a discussion can proceed freely.
The reality is that when you cite anti-CRT sources INSTEAD OF the source material, then the racists DO applaud.
Do you recognize that reality?
Do you recognize that the racists hate - LOATHE - CRT?
Do you recognize the reasons why?
IF you want to begin a discussion about any possible problems with CRT AFTER having read what they're actually saying, and you have good faith disagreements, by all means, let's talk.
IF you are going to drop back to the old "they're commies" attack like a brainless or deviant FBI agent attacking MLK, without even looking at what they're actually saying, then no, there's not much point in talking.
If your knee jerk response is to side with the racists and the attacks they're making, no, there's not much point in talking.
So, it really depends on where you want to start a conversation.
Do you recognize the reality that a good faith discussion can't be held about the pros and cons of CRT UNLESS you're actually familiar with the source?
Do you recognize that the argument, "they want white people to feel guilty and ashamed for being white..." is NOT a CRT argument? At all?
To be honest, I'm no expert in it, still reading and learning. But I can recognize bullshit a mile away when you see these board members and congresspeople (WHITE, by and large) bemoaning this "commie attempt at indoctrination..." Again, these were EXACTLY the attacks they made against King and the Civil Rights warriors.
Can you admit that reality?
Let's start by acknowledging reality and then maybe we can go from there.
To Marshal: On July 4th, 1776 we weren’t a nation yet, idiot. The war FOR independence didn’t end until Yorktown, 1881. And we weren’t legally independent until 1883. And didn’t have a national government until 1789.
Juneteenth didn’t see all slaves free? July 4th was 13 years before we were one nation.
God you’re are such a blind fucking idiot.
No wonder he wants protections for opposing “expressions,” Dan. He’s incapable of thought.
Marshal, you can answer the questions Put to you directly or you can choose not to comment. That's all.
Marshal, it's really quite easy... just recognize reality and answer questions based on reality, not bitter partisan nuttiness.
1. In order to have a fair and rational understanding of a theory, you need to read or hear what the advocates are saying about the theory, at least, as a starting point. Relying upon what the detractors say - especially when THEY are not citing the original views - is no rational, adult way to understand a theory.
Do you agree with this very basic reality?
2. In the real world, the opponents of Civil Rights called King and other activists "commies" and attacked them personally, rather than deal with the weight of the arguments being made. Right?
3. "They want white people to feel guilty and ashamed for being white" is NOT a point being made by CRT advocates, agreed?
For starters. If you want to engage in a rational adult conversation, you really need to demonstrate some basic allegiance to/connection with reality.
Marshal said in a now-deleted comment that I was the one who didn't know what CRT is about.
1. I've been quite clear that I'm no expert in CRT.
2. Which is why I cited what the actual CRT advocates are saying.
3. Which leads to another question for Marshal that he must answer before he can comment here:
Are you saying that YOU know better than the CRT folks what they are advocating?
"Are you saying that YOU know better than the CRT folks what they are advocating?"
I'm saying I totally understand what CRT advocates are saying and what it means.
"The reality is that when you cite anti-CRT sources INSTEAD OF the source material, then the racists DO applaud.
Do you recognize that reality?"
How can you prove that's the reality? Aside from you and your troll, the only racists who speak on the subject are the racists promoting it.
Marshal... "Are you saying that YOU know better than the CRT folks what they are advocating?"
I'm saying I totally understand what CRT advocates are saying and what it means"
1. Not an answer to the question that I asked. Why are you unable to answer questions directly?
As to your claim (which is why I left your non-answer here), you know "exactly what CRT advocates are saying and what it means..."
Wow. That's an impressive claim. On what basis are you saying that you know exactly what they're saying?
How many years have you spent researching CRT? How many books have you read about CRT FROM CRT advocates?
If you haven't read any books (and I'd be willing to bet that you have not read one), how many articles have you read about CRT by CRT advocates?
You literally MUST answer these questions If you're gonna comment here.
Marshal doesn’t even know what happened on July 4th. He thinks that’s the date we became a nation. Hint: it took 13 years before we white people controlled the 13 colonies and agreed to a Constitution.
If he doesn’t grasp his own history, how is going to grasp all our history?
He’s a blind fucking bigot.
For reference, let’s remember that Marshal thinks he know virology better than the National Institutes of Health.
Marshal made a comment which contain a vulgar reference to women (in an attempt to attack me - him thinking that comparing me to women is an insult). Using the most vulgar sort of words about women - the type of language that rapists and perverts use - will not be allowed on these pages, Marshal, any more than use of the N word.
Clean up your hateful shit. (And just to be clear - "cuss words" are not what I consider vulgar. Hateful words that have been historically used to attack and demean women or other historically oppressed groups... THAT is vulgar, deviant, hateful and will not stand here.
Also, you have to answer the actual questions that have been asked of you if you want to comment here.
Marshal is so antagonistic to reality he can’t admit to what we all saw on January 6th.
What questions can he possibly answer with truthfulness? What he had for dinner. That’s it.
Marshal, you need to ask yourself: WHY do you rely upon ad hom attacks and using vulgar attacks on women instead of just answer the question?
If you are unable to answer questions directly and make a good rational case for your position, maybe it's because your views are irrational and just plain wrong.
Marshal continues to try to comment without answering very basic questions. Such as answering if he's read ANY articles (much less books) by CRT advocates. If you are completely ignorant on a topic, first go and educate yourself before trying to engage in commentary.
What a moron you are! If I had no knowledge of CRT, my first comment would have asked, "What's CRT?", not is Dan Trabue truly "fine" with talking about it, and can he do so without regarding every opposing expression as worthy of immediate deletion or without defaulting to regarding the comment or source as racist rather than focusing on and arguing against the point being expressed?
It doesn't matter what I've read or how much (while not suggesting I've read nothing on the subject, I prefer reading the works of/about honest, intelligent black people), it only matters that I've read your post, as my comments and questions would be specific to YOUR words and the quotes or links you've chosen to present.
But again, what matters most is your unwillingness to man up (hence the appropriate pejorative description of your legendary inability to do so) and defend your post without reservation and threat of deletion or unjust coercion. You enjoy near absolute liberty at my blog, but your cowardice is in full display here. Your self-serving questions and one-way criteria are confirming proof of it. "Good faith"? You don't know the meaning of the term.
I'm letting this one stand, just to show clearly how you are NOT answering questions and how your refusal to engage in rational adult conversation blocks you.
"It doesn't matter what I've read or how much..."
? If YOU want to talk about some subject that has some specific views, then of course it matters if you've read about it. How could it not? HOW can you possibly talk intelligently about a theory if you've NEVER READ what the theory's advocates are speaking about?
I'm simply asking you to clarify if you know a single thing about what the CRT advocates are actually saying before you comment on the topic. Your refusal to answer the most basic of questions and instead opting for stupid false claims and personal attacks says it all.
It's not cowardice to ask reasonable questions and expect people to answer them.
It's not cowardice to delete answers that are entirely empty of any answers and engaging in shameful attacks, especially when you attack women with your nonsense attacks.
YOU WILL NOT DEMEAN WOMEN WITH VULGAR ATTACKS on my blog, Marshal. It's not going to happen.
Now, since you've done these attacks on women and others, not only can you not comment here until you answer these basic reasonable questions, you can not comment on this post until you apologize to women for your vulgar, cowardly, rape-y attacks against them. If your next comment doesn't begin with "First of all, let me apologize for my vulgar words that attack and demean women...", you're done on this post.
That's all. You've been warned.
Marshal always damns himself with his own words.
“But again, what matters most is your unwillingness to man up (hence the appropriate pejorative description of your legendary inability to do so) and defend your post without reservation and threat of deletion or unjust coercion.”
Marshal serves best as the example of a coward. He cannot face me for, what, over a year now?
So Marshal claims that women, black folks, and LGBT folks are never really attacked but he himself has just been attacked by you, Dan.
Again, attacks on women, black people, LGBT people are nonexistent.
But Marshal has been attacked right here! on a blog?
Marshal is a sick in the head misogynist, racist, and bigot.
Makes you wonder how they get through the day without just falling apart emotionally. The snowflake thing they try to use really is an instance of projection, isn't it. White fragility is alive and, well, fragile.
Here we are, four days into a post on CRT and Marshal wants to comment but can't even affirm if he's ever even READ anything by CRT advocates, much less whether or not he's studied it seriously or understood it. It's just such a basic starting point.
I have yet to read any references to CRT which fail to heavily cite advocates such as Derrick Bell, Richard Delgado and the like. It's not all that deep and nuanced a subject.
Your last comment forced me to read the two preceeding it from your syphilitic boil, who makes a comment typical of you two in its having no basis in anything I've ever actually said. I've NEVER claimed "that women, black folks, and LGBT folks are never really attacked", anymore than I've said anything an honest person...much less an actual Christian...could describe as an attack on women, your effeminate sensibilities notwithstanding. You lying that I have is a fact, and my rejecting the false charge is not "fragility" of any kind. If that were so, there's no one more fragile than you, Dan, given your constant panty-wetting about being misunderstood by Craig. And now, four days into your post, you still can't even man up and agree to engage in discourse...like a man...without your usual petulant and double-standard rules. Your several deletions thus far validate this truth.
As if he's trying cause me intense abdominal pain from laughter, your troll actually believes I "cannot face" him...as if I fear his (*snort*) "superior intellect"!🤣🤣🤣 The truth is he worked really hard to prove he's beneath me and unworthy of my time. But he's free to try to convince himself of whatever fantasy gives him a tingle.
And you can continue to pretend you give a damn about womanhood. Your beliefs are horribly dangerous to them. You're just too stupid and immoral to see it.
Marshal is now changing his story. He is acknowledging that there do exist at least a few attacks on women, black folks, and LGBT people. So, Dan, I guess he is admitting/not admitting that you yourself have NOT made them up, even though he wrote exactly that before.
And he has refused to back himself up by not continuing to say you attacked him... as he wrote before. In a fit of fragility. I guess he feels less fragile today.
But, he has damned himself again. He says you cannot face him because you delete his dodgingly diversionary narratives and shallow, insubstantial claims that HE KNOWS things like virology and structural legal history right straight from his armchair. I doubt he thinks non-christians have anything to say about Christianity, but he gives himself the white man's license to spout on anything and believe in his self-deemed authority.
He says you cannot face him... and blocks me from his own disintegrating rag. A mind steeped in whiteness is a fragile mind.
0.5% of the documentation for the evidence-based, systematic presentation of the racist socio-cultural facts of our history, called, in the academy, CRT:
"Since the early 2000s, historically white newspapers in Alabama, California, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and North Carolina have apologized with varying degrees of candor for the roles they played in this history. When read end to end, these statements of confession attest to blatantly racist news coverage over a more than century-long period that encompasses the collapse of Reconstruction, the rise of Jim Crow, the two world wars, the civil rights movement, the urban riots of the 1960s, the Vietnam era and beyond.
The Raleigh News & Observer in North Carolina has admitted to engineering a landmark episode of racial terrorism — the 1898 white supremacist coup that overthrew the government of the majority-Black city of Wilmington. The Montgomery Advertiser in Alabama, once the voice of the Confederacy, acknowledges being complicit in racial terrorism through the 1950s. The Lexington Herald-Leader in Kentucky could well have spoken for hundreds of newspapers when it confessed that it had “neglected” to cover the civil rights movement at a time when that movement was changing the face of the country.
The Orlando Sentinel touched on a familiar theme of the struggle for racial justice when it repented for supporting the wrongful prosecution of Black defendants, known as the Groveland Four, who were charged with rape in 1949. The paper was known as The Orlando Morning Sentinel when its bloodthirsty coverage featured a front-page editorial cartoon that depicted four empty electric chairs under the headline “No Compromise!” A threatening editorial warned that “innocent Negroes” might suffer if civil rights lawyers sought to free the defendants based on “legal technicalities.”
The Los Angeles Times apologized for being “an institution deeply rooted in white supremacy” for most of its history and admitted to a record that included indifference and “outright hostility” toward the city’s nonwhite population.
The Kansas City Star confessed that it had “disenfranchised, ignored and scorned generations of Black Kansas Citians” and “robbed an entire community” of “dignity, justice and recognition.” While showing keen interest in military operations abroad, the paper noted, it remained silent when bombs exploded in the homes of Black people not far from its own offices.
The Star shut out even world-famous Black Kansas Citians like the saxophonist Charlie “Bird” Parker, who did not get a significant headline in The Star until he died, in 1955 — “and even then, his name was misspelled and his age was wrong.” When a flood devastated the city in 1977, The Star and its sister paper focused on businesses and suburbs, all but ignoring the fact that the flood had also swallowed homes of residents in Black areas. The newspapers showed more concern for missing pets than for Black citizens whose lives had been swept away in the torrent.
The apology movement is historically resonant on several counts. It offers a timely validation of the besieged academic discipline known as critical race theory — by showing that what news organizations once presented as “fair” and “objective” journalism was in fact freighted with the racist stereotypes that had been deployed to justify slavery. It lays out how the white press alienated generations of African Americans — many of whom still view the leading news outlets of the United States as part of a hostile “white media.”
The movement illustrates what President Lyndon Johnson’s National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders — also known the Kerner Commission — was talking about in 1968 when it criticized the press for writing and reporting “from the standpoint of a white man’s world.” It also vindicates the hundreds of African American men and women who established anti-racist newspapers during the late 19th and early 20th centuries and engaged in open combat with the white press over how Black life would be represented.
The white press in the South dictated how anti-Black atrocities were viewed all over the country by portraying even the most grotesque exercises of violence as necessary to protect a besieged white community. White news organizations elsewhere rubber-stamped this lie. The editors of small, struggling Black publications often risked their lives to refute what they rightly saw as white supremacist propaganda masquerading as news.
Ida B. Wells of the fiery Memphis weekly known as The Free Speech was the best known of these Black press paladins. Her investigations showed that mobs regularly lynched innocent victims as part of a terror tactic that was intended to keep the Black community on its knees. Her most explosive finding was that the Black men who were charged with raping white women were often involved in consensual relationships with them.
Her editorial calling the common rape charge a “threadbare lie” conveyed more truth than the white aristocracy could bear. The white-owned Daily Commercial called for the writer of the editorial to be lynched without using the term. The Evening Scimitar presumed the editorial writer male and called for him to be tied to a stake at the intersection of Main and Madison Streets, his forehead branded with a hot iron and castrated “with a pair of tailor’s shears.” Ms. Wells was fortunately out of town when a mob destroyed the Free Speech office.
The New York Times referred obliquely to the overthrow of the Wilmington government as necessary for restoring “law and order.” The Richmond Planet — under the headline “Horrible Butcheries at Wilmington” — made clear that the coup was aimed at removing Black officeholders and restoring white control of the city.
The Planet described unarmed Black people being shot dead in the streets or driven into the woods, making clear that the carnage had resulted from “a concerted conspiracy which has been underway for several weeks,” with the goal of securing “the reins of the city government by treasonable practices.” In his characteristically acid tone, Mr. Mitchell admonished President William McKinley for failing to restore the legally elected government of the city and observed that the “good white people” of the Wilmington vicinity had either acted as “aiders and abettors of murder” or fallen “painfully silent” in the face of a treasonous attack on democracy.
A similar scenario — complete with distorted news accounts — played out two decades later after the massacre of Black sharecroppers in Elaine, Ark. The sharecroppers had angered their white landlords by banding together to demand a fair price for the crop. After a shootout instigated by whites, as the historian David Levering Lewis has written, “enraged white planters and farmers chased down Black men and women in the high cotton of Phillips County in a frenzy lasting seven days, until the count of the dead approached 200.”
It was widely — and falsely — reported in the white press that the sharecroppers had intended to kill every white person they could and take control of the county. The African American press pointed out soon after the bloodletting that the sharecroppers had been slaughtered for contesting a form of slavery under which white overlords swindled them out of their earnings.
The white Southern press degraded African Americans in a variety of everyday ways. One of the humiliations that continued into the 1950s involved denying Black adults the courtesy titles Mr. and Mrs., and referring to them by first name only, at a time when African Americans could be beaten or even lynched for addressing white people in this fashion. By identifying married Black women by their first names, instead of as Mrs., white newspapers denied the legitimacy of African American marriage and reinforced a racist slander that labeled women of color morally “loose.” Jim Crow society used this defamation to justify the rapacious conduct of white men who targeted Black women for sexual assault.
Black newspapers like The Baltimore Afro-American, The Chicago Defender and The Pittsburgh Courier served as a haven against white press hostility, while incubating and advancing the early civil rights movement.
At a time when African Americans had to commit crimes to appear in the white press, The Defender and its sister papers filled their society pages with scenes of the Black middle class succeeding at business, convening civic organizations or taking their leisure at tony vacation spots. In other words, the Black press was a century ahead of the news media generally in discovering the African American middle class as a marketable subject of journalism.
Black news organizations started to wither as segregation eased and the white press became interested in the civil rights movement. Nevertheless, it would take decades for that interest to extend beyond stories about crime. The Kerner Commission underscored this problem when it admonished the news media to “publish newspapers and produce programs that recognize the existence and activities of the Negro, both as a Negro and as part of the community.”
News organizations that were not moved to address this problem when the business represented a license to print money have come to see things differently since the business model began its collapse. The apology movement represents a belated understanding that these organizations need every kind of reader to survive. The challenge is that the gap news providers are eager to close is vast and was generations in the making."
Brent Staples
New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/10/opinion/sunday/white-newspapers-african-americans.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Marshal needs to suck on that.
So, Marshal has been informed that he needs to apologize for his abusive, vulgar word he used about women (and others, afterwards) and answer questions, instead, we get ~300 words of attacks and nonsense and this meager half-answer to ONE question...
"I have yet to read any references to CRT which fail to heavily cite advocates such as Derrick Bell, Richard Delgado and the like. It's not all that deep and nuanced a subject."
1. You admit you haven't read ANYTHING by CRT people, except for perhaps some isolated unidentified perhaps-quotes from CRT opponents.
2. You think THAT gives you authority to dismiss the topic as "not deep or nuanced."
Do you recognize how cowardly and irrational and just infantile that is in its lack of depth?
I'm guessing by your writing that you never took any higher education and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that! - to be clear. However, did you complete high school? Did you not learn how to rationally support your arguments with data and direct answers to questions?
Ad hom attacks are so sub-high school in their lack of depth. And again, if you haven't completed high school, there's no particular shame in that, necessarily. I'm just trying to give you some benefit of the doubt that you've had some minimal education in writing and reasoning that seems hard to believe given your sub-adult "arguments."
Marshal continues to comment without an apology for his vulgar attack upon women and without answering questions. Those are non-starters.
But, let me assume that Marshal is truly ignorant and doesn't understand how his attacks and non-answers and his abusive words are wrong and explain it to him.
1. Marshal, when you use a vulgar body-part word associated with women as an insult, when you use an old-fashioned term to refer to people with intellectual delays and disabilities, when people use the N-word as an insult... ALL of these things have in common that it's a way of pointing to women, to adults with disabilities, to people of color as Lesser and Undesirable.
"But we're not talking about women, people of color or those with learning disabilities. We're insulting the person/man we're talking to," you all whine when you are caught in your vulgar attacks.
The point is (and should be clear to anyone who is willfully embracing ignorance and reason) that there is NOTHING shameful in being like women, like POC, like those with disabilities. To use those vulgar terms as an insult re-enforces the notion that such people are Less Than.
When the reality that the only ones who are being Less Than are the ones who embrace such vulgar attacks on women, POC or those with disabilities.
So, now that you've been educated, you can either apologize for the vulgar term and at least acknowledge that many people see your attack as the vulgar and despicable attack that it is and apologize for using it HERE (or in the presence of those who recognize the attack for what it is) or you can not comment. That choice is yours.
2. The question was how much source material have you read from CRT advocates. You're indicating that the answer is clearly NONE, but you're refusing to acknowledge it. There's no shame in not having read any such material, but to attack the theory when you are clearly nearly entirely ignorant of it - and when your only apparent source of info you have is from those hostile to the theory... and who have, themselves no doubt, never read the source material - is literally the definition of ignorant.
And I say "apparent" or "alleged" in referencing what you may or may not have read because you have not provided a single link for anything you've read... just a vague reference to having read people talking ABOUT CRT theories with some ALLEGED reference of CRT advocates' words. But since you have provided ZERO support for anything you've said thus far about CRT, I can only say alleged and apparent, because I don't know what you have or haven't read or heard. It's the only possible way I can talk about your apparent ignorance on the topic.
Noting your ignorance and your intellectual cowardice in not reading the source material for that which you hope to criticize is not an ad hom attack, it's an apt description of what you've "provided" thus far, which is nothing much but idiot attacks not apparently based in any reality but just gossip and rumor-mongering.
So, 1. Apologize and move on and 2. answer questions. Or don't. But you won't comment here without that.
Saw a FB post from a friend, just to talk about the reality of the modern conservative movement and what LGBTQ people have to live through because of "conservatives..." Here's what happened to my dear friend's own house, where they live with their partner, minding their own business:
"6 drunk redneck cosplayers took a walk down our street today after patronizing Molly Malones—one of them wearing a confederate flag—and saw our pride flag hanging from the front porch.
They decided to get real mad about it.
Stopped at our house and started shouting slurs. Neighbors sitting on their porch next door (thankfully) didn’t take kindly to that, and told them to leave. They didn’t leave, things escalated to the point people from a block away came outside because they could hear them making a scene.
They pushed past my neighbors fence, trespassed multiple times, threatened to kill my neighbor and his wife, screamed any slur they could think of at anyone who came to check up on us. Threatened to maim or kill a lot of us there.
They didn’t leave until the cops were called."
They concluded the post with this...
"I may have more to say about it later…but will say I’m sad this isn’t the first time I’ve personally encountered something like this in the last 5 years. The last couple of years, even. Extremely glad to know our neighbors don’t put up with it and have our backs… But what about the times when they aren’t around?"
When will we start hearing conservatives shut the hell up about CRT which merely says we should acknowledge the impact of racism and start speaking up when people from THEIR OWN SIDE are out attacking people, threatening innocent people with violence in their own homes?
Critical Race Theory is simply the fact-based documentation of the massive extent of murderous and assaultive brutality perpetrated by white people and white erected and dominated civil systems on people of color. The 400 year, generationally-passed on systems of brutality fed into all other forms of bigotry, including misogyny and homophobia. There is an unbroken line from colonization in the 17th century (1619) to your friend's encounter. That unbroken line is what constitutes whiteness. I assume your friend is white. I assume that your friend by being white - as well as being of some means - offers some amount of protection, both by neighbors and from worse action.
The reason we white people are morally required to attend to our generational history of brutality is because the socially systematized culture of brutality of anti-blackness has been passed down by symbolic and, in recent history, nonverbally learned by each successive generation. And it continues.
Again, that system of brutality is whiteness and it constructs white identity symbolically in the unconscious.
This is the cause of the incapacity of half of us to recognize it - largely the poorer educated or raging will of that half of us, like Stan, Craig, and Marshal. Therefore, what you point to as "attacking" is, felt within Stan, Craig, and Marshal, consciously understood as "defense" of self.
To call on them to resist brutality amounts to calling on them to renounce their identity. I renounce whiteness as brutality. You, Dan, clearly renounce brutality, if not also whiteness: and thereby you are resisting whiteness whether you intend to or not.
Half of us white people are prepared to do no such thing: and only in part because they cannot envision a larger, more compassionate, more loving, more Christ-like or Buddha-like or Muhammad-like or Moses-like or humanist-like life for themselves and for the world. We white people have justified our brutality in a diffuse Calvinist judgment on human nature. So, we lived down to it by native genocide, chattel slavery, constructing second class lives for women, and refusing to let go of disgust at sexual self-ownership.
It's of a piece. Calvin and capitalism cohered to colonize and own Other's bodies. Every Other. Every non-straight white male.
Sorry: every non-straight, non-white, and non-male person.
"Strike a blow to tyranny. Let us reason like adults."
That's funny.
Post a Comment