PDA

View Full Version : Bell's critical race theory promoted in public schools



txradioguy
03-20-2012, 03:38 PM
A radical organization known as the Pacific Educational Group (PEG) is actively promoting Derrick Bell’s Critical Race Theory in public elementary and high schools nationwide, with an intense focus on what PEG calls “Systemic Racism.”

With the approval of the Obama administration, and under the guise of closing achievement gaps between black and white students, PEG is promoting teaching methods that discourage “black and brown” students from conforming to an inherently “white” -- and therefore racist -- curriculum.

PEG also encourages teachers to conform to the presumed cultural backgrounds of students, rather than focusing on norms of assessment and accountability.

Breitbart.com was alerted to the activity of PEG within schools by readers who responded to our reporting on President Barack Obama’s endorsement of Bell, and his use of Critical Race Theory in his lectures at the University of Chicago.

Subsequent investigation led to the revelation that Critical Race Theory is being introduced nationwide through the efforts of PEG.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/19/Your-Child-Is-a-Racist-or-a-Victim-Critical-Race-Theory-in-Obamas-Schools

Bailey
03-20-2012, 03:47 PM
I have heard about this theory in the news but what does it mean?

txradioguy
03-20-2012, 03:52 PM
I have heard about this theory in the news but what does it mean?


More at the link but this will get you started:


CRT was an intellectual development in the late 1970s and early 1980s in which some scholars, perturbed by what they perceived as a loss of momentum in the movement for racial equality, began to doubt that the constitutional and legal system itself had the capacity for change.

This criticism mirrored a Marxist attack long voiced in academia: that the Constitution had been a capitalist document incapable of allowing for the redistributionist change necessary to create a more equal world. To create a more equal world, the Constitution and the legal system would have to be endlessly criticized – hence critical theory – and torn down from within.

The Marxist criticism of the system was called critical theory; the racial criticism of the system was therefore called Critical Race Theory.
So, what does CRT believe? In their primer, Critical Race Theory, Richard Delgado (one of the movement’s founders) and Jean Stefancic set out some basic principles:

1. “Racism is ordinary, not aberrational”;

2. “Our system of white-over-color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material.”

When taken together, these principles have serious ramifications. First, they suggest that legal rules that stand for equal treatment under law – i.e. the 14th Amendment – can remedy “only the most blatant forms of discrimination.” The system is too corrupted, too based on the notion of white supremacy, for equal protection of the laws to ever be a reality. The system must be made unequal in order to compensate for the innate racism of the white majority.

Second, these principles suggest that even measures taken to alleviate unequal protection under the law – for example, the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education – were actually taken for nefarious purposes, to serve white interests. This is exactly what Derrick Bell believed: he said that Brown had only been decided in order to prevent the Soviet Union from using American racial inequality as a public relations baton to wield against the white-majority United States.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/11/What%20Is%20Critical%20Race%20Theory

Odysseus
03-20-2012, 04:19 PM
I have heard about this theory in the news but what does it mean?

Basically, it's an attempt to apply Marxism to race relations. It replaces class with race and presumes that whites oppress everybody else, so that any white-majority institution is inherently racist, and must constantly be challenged. It also denies the idea of objective institutions and history, and proposes that instead there are simply competing narratives. Thus, the idea of equality before the law is of less importance than the outcome of a case as determined by the competing narratives of the persons involved and justice is achieved, not through impartial application of the law, but through the weighting of the narratives to benefit disadvantaged groups. Remember Sonya Sotomayor's line about how a "Wise Latina" would interpret the law differently than, say, a white male? She was indulging Critical Race Theory. When Eric Holder prosecutes states for enforcing immigration law, but declines to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation, he is acting out of the idea that the NBP members are oppressed, and therefore justified, while the governments of Arizona and Oklahoma are oppressors and must be stopped. The letter of the law is irrelevant to the desired outcome.

Rockntractor
03-20-2012, 06:54 PM
Bumping for Wei. Here you go commie, play with this.

Wei Wu Wei
03-20-2012, 07:30 PM
Um a bunch of people treating critical ideas like a vampire treats holy water? Surprise surprise.

When someone is unwilling or unable to discuss race in a sensible manner, that says something.

Rockntractor
03-20-2012, 07:35 PM
Um a bunch of people treating critical ideas like a vampire treats holy water? Surprise surprise.

When someone is unwilling or unable to discuss race in a sensible manner, that says something.

You'rehttp://www.picgifs.com/smileys/smileys-and-emoticons/confused/smileys-confused-140297.gif (http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/) off your game today or someone is using your account.

NJCardFan
03-20-2012, 09:55 PM
Wow. I never realized things like 1+1=2 or learning to communicate in a way that others will understand you is racist. I suppose white people should learn to talk like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvLAh8LLl7o

Odysseus
03-21-2012, 08:36 AM
Um a bunch of people treating critical ideas like a vampire treats holy water? Surprise surprise.

When someone is unwilling or unable to discuss race in a sensible manner, that says something.

And yet, here you are, avoiding the discussion. DAT and I both responded with substantive critiques of Critical Race Theory, and explained what it is and why we find it objectionable. You respond with elitist disdain and ad hominems, but nothing else. What part of my description of CRT do you disagree with? Why should we accept the presumption of guilt that Bell imposes on us?

We're not the ones who are afraid to discuss it.

Elspeth
03-21-2012, 12:11 PM
This is exactly what Derrick Bell believed: he said that Brown had only been decided in order to prevent the Soviet Union from using American racial inequality as a public relations baton to wield against the white-majority United States.

Actually, the public relations angle was a real issue in the 1950s, especially in regard to the economic development of East Asia. The view of the US as a racist nation caused various leaders in Asia to question US motives. There is a really interesting book about this: Cold War Orientalism: Asia in the Middlebrow Imagination, 1945-1961 (http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-Orientalism-Middlebrow-Imagination/dp/0520232305/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332344791&sr=8-1) Certainly the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could be considered a major public relations coup, allowing for subsequent US (as opposed to Soviet) influence in the region.

PR was not the only reason for these changes, but it gave a motivation for Washington to take on the Jim Crow South and pay the consequences. However, internal changes had been taking place for a long time, and eventually the issue would have been forced, regardless of what was going on in the rest of the world.

Elspeth
03-21-2012, 12:14 PM
This criticism mirrored a Marxist attack long voiced in academia: that the Constitution had been a capitalist document incapable of allowing for the redistributionist change necessary to create a more equal world. To create a more equal world, the Constitution and the legal system would have to be endlessly criticized – hence critical theory – and torn down from within.


Where Critical Race Theory breaks down, in my opinion, is that it wants to attack the Constitution, which has actually proved to be an amendable and malleable document. The fact that Constitutional provisions for slavery, for example, could be completely struck from it and the 14 amendment granting full citizenship to all native born peoples could be added, proves the real strength and changeability of the Constitution.

The reason racism persists in this country is the attitudes of people, which cannot be legislated or rewritten out of existence, even with hate crimes statutes. Attacking the Constitution (or any piece of written law) because of the attitudes of people is ludicrous and, in fact, can take away the basis for the fight for Civil Rights. It is the Constitution that protects one's God-given rights, and it is the one principled bludgeon that can be used against the racist and discriminatory acts of individual people, groups, and corporations. Take away the Constitution and what do you have supporting your rights?

It sounds like the Critical Race theorists have been sold a bill of goods and that they are being used to put one more nail in the coffin of the Constitution.

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2012, 05:18 PM
PR was not the only reason for these changes, but it gave a motivation for Washington to take on the Jim Crow South and pay the consequences. However, internal changes had been taking place for a long time, and eventually the issue would have been forced, regardless of what was going on in the rest of the world.

By what or by whom would the issue have been forced? I don't believe in the idea of natural "progress", that history is simply an ongoing project of progression from lesser to greater liberty. It comes from struggle, from catastrophe.

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2012, 05:22 PM
The reason racism persists in this country is the attitudes of people, which cannot be legislated or rewritten out of existence, even with hate crimes statutes.

I think this statement is tautological, bordering on non-meaning. If you consider racism to be an attitude of the people, then you are essentially saying an attitude of the people exists because it exists.

If you consider racism to be something else, then my statement above doesn't stand.

I think a more thorough understanding of racism requires an investigation into other areas, such as class. The issues of class and race have a long and intertwined history in this nation, and separating either one from the other results in a less full picture.

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2012, 05:36 PM
Basically, it's an attempt to apply Marxism to race relations. It replaces class with race and presumes that whites oppress everybody else, so that any white-majority institution is inherently racist, and must constantly be challenged.

It's not simply that any white-majority institution is inherently racist, that misses the point. Even minorities can (and often are) oppressive in their organizational institutions. Look at the white minority in Apartheid-era south africa, or the economic minority of the "1%" who effectively control politics that affect 99%'s all over the entire globe.

It does say that racism persists not just in the attitudes of your "bigot brother-in-law", but in the institutions themselves. Statistics are a basic form of evidence for this. African-Americans are highly disproportionately represented in correctional facilities, they are highly disproportionately arrested for drug offenses, their poverty rate, education rate, net worth, access to health care, homeless rate, unemployment level and more are dramatically different than white Americans. The difference is somethings staggering. The net worth of black families is on average 20 times less than that of white families. There is obviously something going on here.

Almost all of these statistics are in some way or another tied to some major societal institution or legal structure, and they all seem to have the same result.

Is that simply a coincidence? Well since America was first colonized, people of color have been getting the crap end of the deal with laws or institutions were founded. I suppose this is an ongoing, 500 year continuous coincidence?



It also denies the idea of objective institutions and history, and proposes that instead there are simply competing narratives.

This is a whole discussion in and of itself, but I would agree that there is no "objective history". Even the most conservative people recognizes this in the case of war. Whenever there is a war, the history of the conflict, including it's causes and outcomes, will be decided by the victor. Is this because the outcome of the war changes the objective history that preceded it? Not exactly. It's because it's the narrative of the victor that takes on the form of "objective history". So in a sense, there is always a war of narratives.

This fact is even openly discussed on right-wing propaganda outlets like Fox News. Often when there is a liberal politician discussing an issue, they don't even bother to discuss the legitimacy of their words, but instead they ask questions such as "How well will this narrative play with the American people? I for one, think the American people won't buy it!"

At this point, it's conventional wisdom that there is no objective history, no objective viewpoint, no "non-ideological" position.

Rockntractor
03-21-2012, 05:53 PM
Wei is back!http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/niceshoes.gif

Novaheart
03-21-2012, 06:59 PM
African-Americans are highly disproportionately represented in correctional facilities, they are highly disproportionately arrested for drug offenses, their poverty rate, education rate, net worth, access to health care, homeless rate, unemployment level and more are dramatically different than white Americans. The difference is somethings staggering. The net worth of black families is on average 20 times less than that of white families. There is obviously something going on here. .

I've heard this song so many times it gets stuck in my head like Pop Goes The Weasel or the Hare Krishna chant.

People like you always want to trade in nebulous numbers like violent crimes or drug crimes which could theoretically be influenced by selective enforcement. Let's look at murder stats. Murders don't get selectively enforced, or vary widely in their reporting because a community doesn't call the police. Murders get reported, investigated, and prosecuted. Congoid people are 16% of the Florida population, and 54% of the people in FDOC for murder. Whites are 75% of the Florida population and 40% of those in prison for murder. Explain that with your bullshit.

The reason this is important obviously isn't because the black murder rate is unbearable to them or white people- it's probably stable. The reason this is important is because as long as people like you are engaging in excuse making, bullshit, and blaming white people, institutions, or society then the black community doesn't have to MAKE THE CHANGES it needs to make to experience progress.

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2012, 07:05 PM
I've heard this song so many times it gets stuck in my head like Pop Goes The Weasel or the Hare Krishna chant.

People like you always want to trade in nebulous numbers like violent crimes or drug crimes which could theoretically be influenced by selective enforcement. Let's look at murder stats. Murders don't get selectively enforced, or vary widely in their reporting because a community doesn't call the police. Murders get reported, investigated, and prosecuted. Congoid people are 16% of the Florida population, and 54% of the people in FDOC for murder. Whites are 75% of the Florida population and 40% of those in prison for murder. Explain that with your bullshit.

I'm not arguing with the statistics. How do you explain the difference in these numbers?

I would suggest there are many factors involved, including the differences in poverty, untreated mental illness, broken homes, unemployment, gang violence, and more. These factors are all related to institutions and legal structures.




The reason this is important obviously isn't because the black murder rate is unbearable to them or white people- it's probably stable. The reason this is important is because as long as people like you are engaging in excuse making, bullshit, and blaming white people, institutions, or society then the black community doesn't have to MAKE THE CHANGES it needs to make to experience progress.

The history of black people organizing for change is a history of being met with resistance by those in power. White-led lynchings, extreme violence, the Bull Conners throughout the south, FBI investigations and more.

I agree that the black community needs to organize and make changes, but I'm also recognizing the the social structures, institutions, and legal frameworks are stacked against their favor.

NJCardFan
03-21-2012, 07:34 PM
It does say that racism persists not just in the attitudes of your "bigot brother-in-law", but in the institutions themselves. Statistics are a basic form of evidence for this. African-Americans are highly disproportionately represented in correctional facilities, they are highly disproportionately arrested for drug offenses, their poverty rate, education rate, net worth, access to health care, homeless rate, unemployment level and more are dramatically different than white Americans. The difference is somethings staggering. The net worth of black families is on average 20 times less than that of white families. There is obviously something going on here.


Can't be that they're breaking the law, right? Nah, can't be that.

Novaheart
03-22-2012, 12:00 AM
I'm not arguing with the statistics. How do you explain the difference in these numbers?



Where do you live that you need the root cause explained to you? Crime is more pervasive and persistent in the black community because the black community tolerates criminals and crime. They have been so thoroughly brainwashed that they believe that the "white devil" is more of a threat to them than their own, and they are critically wrong. I have had online discussions with many black people including a criminology student and many of these people have one thing in common: complete denial about the role of black culture in the failure of the black community. They outright refuse to believe the statistics. They sincerely believe that cops (who they view as white) and other white people kill more blacks than blacks kill whites or each other, and they sincerely believe that the prisons are full of black men who are in jail for no other reason than being black. A great many of them also seem to think that all white people secretly want to have sex with a black man.

The black comunity may not be monolithic, but the stereotypes I have listed are supported by experience. They keep saying "something has to change" but are completely clueless that it is they who have to change.

And I would add that the urban gay community is no better in its own way. Meth and AIDS could be stopped or severely slowed in their tracks overnight if the community would simply grow a collective backbone and refuse to tolerate the behaviors of using meth and irresponsible sex. Instead, they have always taken the gentle suggestion path over the "Do this or you will be socially excluded" path.

Elspeth
03-22-2012, 12:37 AM
By what or by whom would the issue have been forced? I don't believe in the idea of natural "progress", that history is simply an ongoing project of progression from lesser to greater liberty. It comes from struggle, from catastrophe.

By what was the Civil War forced? What about the end of slavery? You mean those abolitionists were just window dressing?

I'm not a fan of the idea of progress myself. NDAA and Obama's recent executive order prove that we are not going from lesser to greater liberty but the other way around.

Odysseus
03-22-2012, 12:50 AM
It's not simply that any white-majority institution is inherently racist, that misses the point. Even minorities can (and often are) oppressive in their organizational institutions. Look at the white minority in Apartheid-era south africa, or the economic minority of the "1%" who effectively control politics that affect 99%'s all over the entire globe.

But Critical Race Theory doesn't apply to ethnic minorities. It specifically excludes them as racist due to their presumed lack of power. Apartheid-era South Africa was nowhere near as bad as Sunni-dominated Iraq, Alawite-dominated Syria, Hutu-dominated Rwanda, black-dominated Zimbabwe or many other tribal/ethnically conflicted zone, and yet, CRT doesn't speak to any of these regions, because its intent is to perpetuate grievances within western democracies, not to address real injustice. The 1% drivel has no basis in fact, and can be discarded without further discussion.


It does say that racism persists not just in the attitudes of your "bigot brother-in-law", but in the institutions themselves.

Yes, it presumes racism where none exists and then proposes the manipulation of the institutions in order to achieve predetermined outcomes, regardless of the facts on the ground.


Statistics are a basic form of evidence for this. African-Americans are highly disproportionately represented in correctional facilities, they are highly disproportionately arrested for drug offenses, their poverty rate, education rate, net worth, access to health care, homeless rate, unemployment level and more are dramatically different than white Americans. The difference is somethings staggering. The net worth of black families is on average 20 times less than that of white families. There is obviously something going on here.

Almost all of these statistics are in some way or another tied to some major societal institution or legal structure, and they all seem to have the same result.

Is that simply a coincidence? Well since America was first colonized, people of color have been getting the crap end of the deal with laws or institutions were founded. I suppose this is an ongoing, 500 year continuous coincidence?

Correlation is not causation, and the citation of statistics while filtering out contrary statistics creates a logical fallacy. To presume that racist American institutions are the sole cause of disparate statistics, we would have to test the hypothesis by comparing how other racial groups fare in the same institutions. Do Asians, for example, have the same poverty rates, education rates, average net worth, homeless rates or unemployment levels as whites? No, in fact, they are better across the board. Clearly, the three groups that we are looking at, blacks, whites and Asians, fare differently under the same set of institutions, which tells us, not that the institutions are biased, but that other factors are at play. Culture, for example.


This is a whole discussion in and of itself, but I would agree that there is no "objective history". Even the most conservative people recognizes this in the case of war. Whenever there is a war, the history of the conflict, including it's causes and outcomes, will be decided by the victor. Is this because the outcome of the war changes the objective history that preceded it? Not exactly. It's because it's the narrative of the victor that takes on the form of "objective history". So in a sense, there is always a war of narratives.

While no one denies that there is some subjectivity in history, only a lunatic denies that there was an objective reality. Without that objective reality, there is no chance for reconciliation of conflicting claims, which is the fundamental function of law. Scholarship in areas like history should seek to find the objective facts, not deliberately substitute the narrative for the facts. Critical Race Theory does the opposite, in that it prejudges the facts according to the narratives, and then deliberately chucks out those facts that conflict with the preconceived narrative. It literally elevates lies over truth in order to satisfy a political agenda.


I'm not arguing with the statistics. How do you explain the difference in these numbers?

I would suggest there are many factors involved, including the differences in poverty, untreated mental illness, broken homes, unemployment, gang violence, and more. These factors are all related to institutions and legal structures.

And how do you explain those factors? Asians were subject to discrimination that was just as awful as Jim Crow. Japanese-Americans were forcibly interned and impoverished during WWII, but within a generation, had higher standards of living than most Americans. Chinese immigrants were subjected to vicious discrimination, but today, they have far lower poverty rates. If America were a racist white nation, then wouldn't all minorities suffer equally?


The history of black people organizing for change is a history of being met with resistance by those in power. White-led lynchings, extreme violence, the Bull Conners throughout the south, FBI investigations and more.

I agree that the black community needs to organize and make changes, but I'm also recognizing the the social structures, institutions, and legal frameworks are stacked against their favor.

And yet, the economic indicators for blacks were stronger during the early Civil Rights era than they are now. Are we to believe that the lower rates of poverty, illegitimacy, gang violence, untreated mental illness and broken homes of the Jim Crow period were somehow reflective of a less racist era? Or, is it possible that the war on poverty turned out to be a war on individual initiative, and crated a culture of perpetual dependence?

Critical Race Theory is a collection of excuses for failure. In the case of Derrick Bell, we're talking about a man who recognized that he lacked the credentials and achievements of his peers at Harvard, and came up with a theory that justified and excused his failings and blamed them on the institution that hired him, rather than working to meet the standards of the institution. It's pernicious nonsense that breeds anger, resentment and failure.

Elspeth
03-22-2012, 12:57 AM
I think this statement is tautological, bordering on non-meaning. If you consider racism to be an attitude of the people, then you are essentially saying an attitude of the people exists because it exists.

No, kid. People have attitudes for all kinds of reasons. Attitudes toward African slaves existed well before the Constitution. If you read your Howard Zinn, you will understand that creating social divisions between the Black slaves and the White indentured servants was a divide and conquer strategy to prevent the overthrow of the British elite in the colonies, and it was done along racial lines. So from the early days of the American colonies, poor Whites in no better shape than Blacks were made to feel an alignment with the powerful Whites who indentured/enslaved them along only the line of color.

What I did say is that a single Constitution or Declaration cannot change the attitudes of people. It can set up a type of government and give general principles under which the law should be applied, but it cannot dictate that any person should change his thinking. It can't. Attitudes need to be changed within people.


If you consider racism to be something else, then my statement above doesn't stand.

I consider racism to be a belief that a certain race is inferior to one's own. Racist behaviors are the actions come from such a belief. Prejudice is the prejudgment of a person or group based entirely on a pre-existing belief, without the consideration of any real world data. Discrimination is the action of denying a person or group a right or privilege one would guarantee to all others.



I think a more thorough understanding of racism requires an investigation into other areas, such as class. The issues of class and race have a long and intertwined history in this nation, and separating either one from the other results in a less full picture.

Like the example from Zinn above, buddy. And a good critical theorist understands that all these things intersect. But a good Constitution cannot possibly take all these things into account because (1) it would be perceived as greatly unfair (2) it would be unwieldy and (3) aggrieved groups can change status and no longer need the same treatment, thereby necessitating a rewriting of the Constitution every time someone's condition changed for the better.

The best a Constitution can do is guarantee the same rights to all. It is up to the citizenry to decide who best to help and how.

Elspeth
03-22-2012, 01:19 AM
But Critical Race Theory doesn't apply to ethnic minorities. It specifically excludes them as racist due to their presumed lack of power. Apartheid-era South Africa was nowhere near as bad as Sunni-dominated Iraq, Alawite-dominated Syria, Hutu-dominated Rwanda, black-dominated Zimbabwe or many other tribal/ethnically conflicted zone, and yet, CRT doesn't speak to any of these regions, because its intent is to perpetuate grievances within western democracies, not to address real injustice. The 1% drivel has no basis in fact, and can be discarded without further discussion.

You have just outlined one of the major faults of CRT and critical theory in general: it is horribly ethnocentric.





While no one denies that there is some subjectivity in history, only a lunatic denies that there was an objective reality. Without that objective reality, there is no chance for reconciliation of conflicting claims, which is the fundamental function of law. Scholarship in areas like history should seek to find the objective facts, not deliberately substitute the narrative for the facts. Critical Race Theory does the opposite, in that it prejudges the facts according to the narratives, and then deliberately chucks out those facts that conflict with the preconceived narrative. It literally elevates lies over truth in order to satisfy a political agenda.

Hence its need to completely reject the objective.




And how do you explain those factors? Asians were subject to discrimination that was just as awful as Jim Crow. Japanese-Americans were forcibly interned and impoverished during WWII, but within a generation, had higher standards of living than most Americans. Chinese immigrants were subjected to vicious discrimination, but today, they have far lower poverty rates. If America were a racist white nation, then wouldn't all minorities suffer equally?

In fact, the Chinese were the first immigrant group in the US legally required to carry ID cards (The Dog Tag Law), a practice rooted in slavery.

http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=6405



And yet, the economic indicators for blacks were stronger during the early Civil Rights era than they are now. Are we to believe that the lower rates of poverty, illegitimacy, gang violence, untreated mental illness and broken homes of the Jim Crow period were somehow reflective of a less racist era? Or, is it possible that the war on poverty turned out to be a war on individual initiative, and crated a culture of perpetual dependence?

In a way this isn't quite fair. Economic indicators for most working Americans have been falling since the 1970s. Blacks started behind the eight ball (even more so than many immigrant groups) due to Jim Crow, and the building of Black wealth since 1964 has been impeded by the conditions that have impeded most of the nation.

However, I agree with your characterization of the "War on Poverty." I think anytime the President starts a "war" on something, it's set up to produce the exact thing the war is supposed to be on. (So, ask me what I think of the "War on Drugs" and who benefits. :) )


Critical Race Theory is a collection of excuses for failure. In the case of Derrick Bell, we're talking about a man who recognized that he lacked the credentials and achievements of his peers at Harvard, and came up with a theory that justified and excused his failings and blamed them on the institution that hired him, rather than working to meet the standards of the institution. It's pernicious nonsense that breeds anger, resentment and failure.

Critical Theory is a collection of excuses for the failure of the Soviet Union to live up to its original ideals as it became very quickly totalitarian. One famous psychoanalysis type, Lukacs, actually resettled in the Soviet Union.

NJCardFan
03-22-2012, 02:55 AM
People like wee read this shit and lap it up like a cat to a saucer of milk. But they never stop to look at the facts.

Odysseus
03-22-2012, 11:37 AM
You have just outlined one of the major faults of CRT and critical theory in general: it is horribly ethnocentric.

Of course it is. Unlike laws which are uniformly applied, CRT creates special categories of victims and oppressors and institutionalizes its own form of racism. It's not a solution to racism, it's a negative image, with the roles reversed.


Hence its need to completely reject the objective.

Exactly. Objectivity and equality before the law hamstring those who would elevate their own prejudices to government rules. Objective law empowers individuals, who know the legal status of their actions before they set out to accomplish them. Subjective law empowers elites, who can choose winners and losers at whim.


In fact, the Chinese were the first immigrant group in the US legally required to carry ID cards (The Dog Tag Law), a practice rooted in slavery.
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=6405

I wasn't aware of that, but it doesn't surprise me. The treatment of Chinese immigrants in the past was shameful. We ought to help them by ensuring that they have access to education, health care, welfare benefits... Oh, wait, they don't need any of that stuff. They make their own way quite well. :redface:


In a way this isn't quite fair. Economic indicators for most working Americans have been falling since the 1970s. Blacks started behind the eight ball (even more so than many immigrant groups) due to Jim Crow, and the building of Black wealth since 1964 has been impeded by the conditions that have impeded most of the nation.

Actually, economic indicators haven't been falling. It's simply a matter of how they are reported. Individual wages have increased significantly over the last five decades, but household income has remained static, because households are an elastic term that encompass a family, regardless of the number of persons in it or the number of employed persons. The household data for a single earner with two kids and a spouse is substantially different from the per capita data. Without adjusting for differences in household size or other demographic factors, the reports on declining wages are simply not credible.

And, the issue here is not whether everybody has had a declining standard of living, but whether one group's standard has declined against another's. In this regard, the pathologies that we associate with poverty, such as high out of wedlock birth rates, broken homes, welfare, gang activities, etc., have increased faster among blacks than whites or Asians. Black unemployment was actually lower than white unemployment in the 1960s. The collapse of this critical statistic demonstrates that something has happened which cannot be chalked up to the simplistic model of racism in institutions that CRT proposes.


However, I agree with your characterization of the "War on Poverty." I think anytime the President starts a "war" on something, it's set up to produce the exact thing the war is supposed to be on. (So, ask me what I think of the "War on Drugs" and who benefits. :) )

Since we've lost the capacity to fight wars on terrorists or other foreign threats, it's no surprise to me that we cannot fight wars against drugs or poverty. War is a temporary mobilization of a nation's resources for the purpose of defeating an enemy. It involves strategic, operational and tactical levels and clearly defined objectives. Both wars fail in this regard.

What is the objective to the war on poverty? Can we actually eliminate poverty, or is there always going to be a bottom quintile of people whose income sets them below the poverty line? Does being below the poverty line in American in 2012 make you impoverished, the way that being below the poverty line in 1936 Appalachia did? Is the war on poverty actually just a means to redistribute income and makeover our culture?

What is the objective of the war on drugs? Has any nation ever reduced drug abuse down to zero? What makes the reduced consumption of drugs a more critical health and welfare issue than the ingestion of fast foods? Are drugs an economic issue, a moral issue, a social issue (defined here as an issue with effects that cross the entire society)? What actions are we willing to take in order to achieve our goals?


Critical Theory is a collection of excuses for the failure of the Soviet Union to live up to its original ideals as it became very quickly totalitarian. One famous psychoanalysis type, Lukacs, actually resettled in the Soviet Union.

Of course. And a means of gaining and maintaining power over the disparaged institutions.

Odysseus
03-22-2012, 01:39 PM
Thomas Sowell destroys Wei's argument:





Race and Rhetoric (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/articles/293878/race-and-rhetoric-thomas-sowell)
By Thomas Sowell (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/author/200445)

March 20, 2012 12:00 A.M. (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/articles/293878/race-and-rhetoric-thomas-sowell)

One of the things that turned up, during a long-overdue cleanup of my office, was an old yellowed copy of the New York Times dated July 24, 1992. One of the front-page headlines said: “White-Black Disparity in Income Narrowed in 80’s, Census Shows.”

The 1980s? Weren’t those the years of the Reagan administration, the “decade of greed,” the era of “neglect” of the poor and minorities, if not “covert racism”?

More recently, during the administration of America’s first black president, a 2011 report from the Pew Research Center had the headline, “Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics.”

While the median net worth of whites was ten times the median net worth of blacks in 1988, the last year of the Reagan administration, the ratio was 19 to 1 in 2009, the first year of the Obama administration. With Hispanics, the ratio was 8 to 1 in 1988 and 15 to 1 in 2009.

Race is just one of the areas in which the rhetoric and the reality often go in opposite directions. Political rhetoric is intended to do one thing — win votes. Whether the policies that accompany that rhetoric make people better off or worse off is far less of a concern to politicians, if any concern at all.
Democrats receive the overwhelming bulk of the black vote by rhetoric and by presenting what they have done as the big reason that blacks have advanced. So long as most blacks and whites alike mistake rhetoric for reality, this political game can go on.

A Manhattan Institute study last year by Edward Glaeser and Jacob Vigdor showed that, while the residential segregation of blacks has generally been declining from the middle of the 20th century to the present, it was rising during the first half of the 20th century. The net result is that blacks in 2010 were almost as residentially unsegregated as they were back in 1890.

There are complex reasons behind such things, but the bottom line is plain. The many laws, programs, and policies designed to integrate residential housing cannot be automatically assumed to translate into residentially integrated housing. Government is not the sole factor, nor necessarily the biggest factor, no matter what impression political rhetoric gives.

No city is more liberal in its rhetoric and policies than San Francisco. Yet there are fewer than half as many blacks living in San Francisco today as there were in 1970.

Nor is San Francisco unique. A number of other very liberal California counties saw their black populations drop by 10,000 people or more, just between the 1990 and 2000 censuses — even when the total population of these counties was growing.

One of the many reasons why rhetoric does not automatically translate into reality is that the ramifications of so many government policies produce results completely different from what was claimed, or even believed, when these policies were imposed.

The poverty rate among blacks was nearly cut in half in the 20 years prior to the 1960s, a record unmatched since then, despite the expansion of welfare-state policies in the 1960s.

Unemployment among black 16- and 17-year-old males was 12 percent back in 1950. Yet unemployment rates among black 16- and 17-year-old males has not been less than 30 percent for any year since 1970 — and has been over 40 percent in some of those years.

Not only was unemployment among blacks in general lower before the liberal welfare-state policies expanded in the 1960s, rates of imprisonment of blacks were also lower then, and most black children were raised in two-parent families. At one time, a higher percentage of blacks than whites were married and working.

None of these facts fits liberal social dogmas.

While many politicians and “leaders” have claimed credit for black progress, no one seems to be willing to take the blame for the retrogressions represented by higher unemployment rates, higher crime rates, and higher rates of imprisonment today. Or for the disintegration of the black family, which survived centuries of slavery and generations of government-imposed discrimination in the Jim Crow era, but began coming apart in the wake of the expansion of the liberal welfare state and its accompanying social dogmas.

The time is long overdue to start looking beyond the prevailing political rhetoric to the hard realities.

— Thomas Sowell (http://www.tsowell.com/) is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution (http://www.hoover.org/). © 2012 Creators Syndicate, Inc.




Permalink (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/articles/293878/race-and-rhetoric-thomas-sowell)

Wei Wu Wei
03-22-2012, 05:28 PM
Where do you live that you need the root cause explained to you? Crime is more pervasive and persistent in the black community because the black community tolerates criminals and crime.

I've spent over half of my entire life living in poor black and brown neighborhoods. Crime isn't "tolerated" in these communities. Mothers in these communities fear for their children's lives because of the crime and violence that exists there.

Crime isn't just a thing that some people enjoy doing and that some people just accept.

There are people who accept that crime exists in their communities because it's always been there as long as they've been around. There are some people who do enjoy the criminal environment because they personally profit from it.




They have been so thoroughly brainwashed that they believe that the "white devil" is more of a threat to them than their own, and they are critically wrong. I have had online discussions with many black people including a criminology student and many of these people have one thing in common: complete denial about the role of black culture in the failure of the black community. They outright refuse to believe the statistics.

There is a role of "black culture" as you call it, in the issue we are examining, but it's entirely ignorant to look only at that, and ignore the history, the institutions, the laws, and the economic environment. You can't look at one of these topics without necessarily bringing in the others, they are intertwined. There has not existed a prominent "black culture" in the history of the united states that wasn't marginalized by the society at large. Examining black culture without this context gives you an incomplete picture.




They sincerely believe that cops (who they view as white) and other white people kill more blacks than blacks kill whites or each other, and they sincerely believe that the prisons are full of black men who are in jail for no other reason than being black. A great many of them also seem to think that all white people secretly want to have sex with a black man.

It's not about white people running around murdering black people. Yes there is an unacceptable level of black-on-black violence. I am not ignoring or denying this fact. However, we should keep looking at the phenomenon and not ignore other facts. Crime, violence, and gang activity are all more likely to thrive under certain conditions and diminish under others. If you look at the historical condition of black people in America, the disparity of wealth ownership between blacks and whites, the unemployment rate, the prison rate, the education gap, the increase in broken homes and so on, you see that black people are far more likely to be born into an area where crime is far more likely to thrive. Each of these statistics are intertwined with laws, policies, social norms, institutions, and government / economic structures.




The black comunity may not be monolithic, but the stereotypes I have listed are supported by experience. They keep saying "something has to change" but are completely clueless that it is they who have to change.

Change needs to happen from both ends, but we shouldn't forget that every time people in color have organized collectively to fight for their interests against the institutional status quo, they were met with fierce resistance.

Wei Wu Wei
03-22-2012, 05:30 PM
Why is it that when we talk about struggling and working class white people and the high unemployment rate, people are so quick to blame the Federal Government, saying that the actions of the federal government are hurting "regular working Americans", but when we talk about struggling and working class black people and their high unemployment rate, the topic suddenly shifts to "their own choices" and how they "blame the government"?

Why are economic problems for white people considered to be problems of the government (Democratic) laws and institutions, but economic problems for black people are considered to be problems of their culture?

Rockntractor
03-22-2012, 05:38 PM
Why is it that when we talk about struggling and working class white people and the high unemployment rate, people are so quick to blame the Federal Government, saying that the actions of the federal government are hurting "regular working Americans", but when we talk about struggling and working class black people and their high unemployment rate, the topic suddenly shifts to "their own choices" and how they "blame the government"?

Have you not read anything on the board for the last three years? The answers are given to you on a daily basis and you ignore them.

Odysseus
03-23-2012, 08:31 AM
I've spent over half of my entire life living in poor black and brown neighborhoods. Crime isn't "tolerated" in these communities. Mothers in these communities fear for their children's lives because of the crime and violence that exists there.

Crime isn't just a thing that some people enjoy doing and that some people just accept.

There are people who accept that crime exists in their communities because it's always been there as long as they've been around. There are some people who do enjoy the criminal environment because they personally profit from it.

Recently, two kids in NYC threw a shopping cart from the roof of a store and struck a woman on the street, nearly killing her. A third kid had put himself at risk by trying to keep them from throwing the cart, and managed to get one away from them before they threw the other. The kid who tried to stop them is now a pariah in the community, because he "snitched". This attitude of attacking people who try to work with the police to reduce crime is pervasive in many minority neighborhoods.


There is a role of "black culture" as you call it, in the issue we are examining, but it's entirely ignorant to look only at that, and ignore the history, the institutions, the laws, and the economic environment. You can't look at one of these topics without necessarily bringing in the others, they are intertwined. There has not existed a prominent "black culture" in the history of the united states that wasn't marginalized by the society at large. Examining black culture without this context gives you an incomplete picture.

While ignoring the culture gives you no picture at all. Again, the same institutional racism was applied against Chinese, Japanese and other immigrant groups, all of whom eventually overcame the barriers and prospered. Latino immigrants are proving harder to assimilate because of the porous border and the rise of multicultural idiocies that encourage ghettoization and discourage assimilation and mastery of academic skills.


It's not about white people running around murdering black people. Yes there is an unacceptable level of black-on-black violence. I am not ignoring or denying this fact. However, we should keep looking at the phenomenon and not ignore other facts. Crime, violence, and gang activity are all more likely to thrive under certain conditions and diminish under others. If you look at the historical condition of black people in America, the disparity of wealth ownership between blacks and whites, the unemployment rate, the prison rate, the education gap, the increase in broken homes and so on, you see that black people are far more likely to be born into an area where crime is far more likely to thrive. Each of these statistics are intertwined with laws, policies, social norms, institutions, and government / economic structures.

We did look at the historical conditions, but without filtering out facts that you find inconvenient. As Thomas Sowell pointed out in the column that I posted in this thread, but which you are ignoring:

The poverty rate among blacks was nearly cut in half in the 20 years prior to the 1960s, a record unmatched since then, despite the expansion of welfare-state policies in the 1960s.

Unemployment among black 16- and 17-year-old males was 12 percent back in 1950. Yet unemployment rates among black 16- and 17-year-old males has not been less than 30 percent for any year since 1970 — and has been over 40 percent in some of those years.

Not only was unemployment among blacks in general lower before the liberal welfare-state policies expanded in the 1960s, rates of imprisonment of blacks were also lower then, and most black children were raised in two-parent families. At one time, a higher percentage of blacks than whites were married and working.


Change needs to happen from both ends, but we shouldn't forget that every time people in color have organized collectively to fight for their interests against the institutional status quo, they were met with fierce resistance.

And also fierce support. The Civil Rights movement would not have gotten anywhere without the support of whites who also recognized the injustice of Jim Crow laws, and who voluntarily imposed affirmative action, even at the cost of opportunities to their own children. Harping on the negative creates the impression of a monolithic culture of racism in America, and fosters a perpetual culture of grievance, which empowers demagogues but marginalizes and punishes those who seek to achieve the American dream on their own. This works out very well for racial hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and white liberals whose largess keeps them in power in return for votes, but it divides the rest of us and keeps us at each others' throats. No thanks.


Why is it that when we talk about struggling and working class white people and the high unemployment rate, people are so quick to blame the Federal Government, saying that the actions of the federal government are hurting "regular working Americans", but when we talk about struggling and working class black people and their high unemployment rate, the topic suddenly shifts to "their own choices" and how they "blame the government"?

Why are economic problems for white people considered to be problems of the government (Democratic) laws and institutions, but economic problems for black people are considered to be problems of their culture?

Oh, please. We've spent trillions of dollars on anti-poverty programs at every level of our government. We've inverted our culture with affirmative action programs whose sole purpose was to advance blacks at the expense of whites, even those whites who never had a hand in discrimination. Claiming that we haven't thrown the resources of government at this problem is ridiculous.

The real problem is not that government takes a greater interest when gainfully employed people are thrown out of work en masse, it's that the government is attempting to impose outcomes on the economy, which results in economic failure. The current crisis in mortgages and debt is directly attributable to government policies that created the housing bubble and the record deficits that we are experiencing. Getting government out of the business of business will return the economy to its former equilibrium. When that happens, there will still be people who make less or make nothing because they choose not to work, or to work less, or who lack the talent or skill to do the jobs that pay the most, or who leave the workforce to raise families, or who refuse to relocate when jobs do, or all of the other myriad reasons that can be factored into why somebody makes more money than somebody else, but which no government planner or group of planners can anticipate and correct for. In other words, the problem is the hubris of people who think that they know more than the millions of Americans whose daily transactions make up the economic activities of the nation, and who are, ultimately, the best judges of how they will spend their time and resources.