Conservative and Right Wing cancel culture

Post Reply New Topic

^

Critical race theory.

(I forgot that too. Thought it was some WP person's initials).

Critical Race Theory. CRT is pretty complex, actually, especially once you start talking about intersectionality. Some key topics are:

Race as a social construct
Systemic racism
The permanence of racism in American institutions and law
Colorblindness in race relations is racist (only benefits white people)
Emphasis on narrative rather than evidence

I think Kraich and cyber might be struggling to come to terms with how CRT is anti-liberal. Because of race being a social construct, racist permanence, and systemic racism, Kraich and cyber are both racists. They dislike being labeled racists, of course, but their sensitivity to being labeled a racist arises from their white fragility. In short, white people can’t handle criticism because they are used to a power structure in which they are the dominant group. They are fragile, and racist labels cause all sorts of reactions. White denial is quite common, perhaps THE most common response. But it goes way beyond that, especially considering what this means for things like affirmative action and social justice. Kraich and cyber believe that CRT is nothing more than teaching history and critical thinking.

I always thought it meant Cathode Ray Tube.

I think (I can certainly talk about the UK but the USA is very different) racism is very complicated and where blacks for example claim they are being discriminated against are not in many cases, but they see it as discrimination because they see wealthy whites (Somehow they do not notice wealthy blacks) and assume that the whites had some sort of magic wand that they missed out on, when the truth is that those whites or their parents, or their grandparents in some cases had to work really hard to get their wealth into their family line and had to take extreme risks as well to do that, and they do not take such risks or are willing to give everything to make it happen.

And now this is hard. The key to change is having a good attitude. Bad attitudes will create a senario where the areas of people with a bad attitude end up being slum areas because people rob each other and no one prospers who lives there.
Change the attitudes of the people and one has worked a miriacle, and this is not race specific. It works regardless of race. Change the attitudes of the people so they love one another ad do good to one another and one changes th direction the whole community is heading. This is the key for change and it starts from within.

The magic wand is question is what's collectively known as institutional racism and white privilege and chosing to ignore those factors doesn't make them cease to be relevant even if you're living in a nation who's development was largely fuelled by stolen labour, stolen land and stolen goods.

The British Empire was a parasitic and racist entity for it's entire existence and the wealth it brought was looted.

As far as Neo-Marxist accusations from conservatives goes, they aren’t wrong. Before you had Critical Race Theory, you had Critical Theory, which is the skeleton or outline for CRT. CT explores narrative, social construct, linguistics, and the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy. And yes, it DOES have Marxist roots. Marx’s contribution to the development of CT is the critique of ideology. For Marx, it is not enough to simply believe something. You have to act on those beliefs to effect social change. Marx establishes a link between thought and action.

CRT narrows CT down to the relationship between black people and dominant groups (white people). Both CRT and CT examine the failures of Marxism, asking the question of why communism failed, why it didn’t catch on. They point to social constructs (e.g. race, among others) and the dominant cultural hegemony. The answer is that this hegemony does not allow change. And by not allowing change, I’m not referring to a political party or liberal/conservative.

Remember, it’s about the hegemony. The current POTUS is white, yes? But he’s a Democrat, liberal, right? What about the Senate? How many black senators? Since 1870 there have only been 11. ONLY 11. Currently there are only 3. What about the presidency? Only ONE black president. W00. So kind of white America to give black people 3 sitting senators, 11 total, and ONE president. Yaaaaay! So liberal (white) majorities will give blacks representation at varying levels of government when THEY (white liberals) feel like it. You cannot call yourself a liberal and think that you are somehow magically exempt from being a racist as long as you have white skin. You are as much part of the hegemony as white conservatives.

And so one feature of CRT is racist permanence—racism is SYSTEMIC, it is woven into the very fabric of the American constitution and into every aspect of American society. You can’t eliminate racism any more than you change the color of a white person’s skin. So what CRT seeks to do is not merely inform or educate. It seeks to completely change the culture all the way down to early childhood. It seeks a reinforced praxis that CT and Marxism never had. American CT is an offshoot of the Frankfurt School but lacks a means to achieve social change. Soviet communism achieved social change through violent revolution. CRT aims to achieve social change through the public education system. The first lessons of CRT essentially teach children that if you are white, there is something wrong with you. It proceeds from there to demonstrate that all white people participate in systemic oppression of people who are different from them, blacks in particular. And so as these kids get older, they learn to step aside in order to culturally shift the hegemony more in favor of black people such that black culture, not white, is the dominant culture. If they achieve nothing else, at the very least it sets a dividing line between whites and blacks such that white culture can’t touch them.

I’m going to stop here because it only gets more complex, and I’m trying to avoid being critical of CRT outright. I’m not trying to caricature CRT, but provide a realistic CRT dialogue to demonstrate what that looks like.

Well, the problem is that blacks REALLY ARE discriminated against. CRT people are not wrong about this. Racism is still a thing, and there’s a lot of truth behind the CRT movement. In the US since the 1970’s attempts were made to balance this out, such as affirmative action and colorblind justice. I’m not going to talk about affirmative action, but what came out of color blindness was that blacks were disproportionately sentenced to lengthy prison terms for non-violent crimes and also suffered from brutal treatment by white police officers. I would argue that if you want to avoid prison, quit freakin’ breaking the law. That’s what colorblindness is—you do the crime, you do the time, regardless of skin color.

What you find with CRT isn’t simply that more blacks commit certain crimes than white people. The problem is that laws are passed that make things blacks do illegal. There aren’t laws against things white people do. Or if a white person breaks a law that a black person wouldn’t have the opportunity to break because of cultural differences, it’s typically a misdemeanor and the white guy just has to pay a $300 fine. And that’s easy because white people can find that kind of change under their couch cushions. Black people, by contrast, have heavier fines and don’t have that kind of money, anyway. And that means justice is lopsided.

I disagree that there are separate justice systems, though. I don’t buy the CRT argument at all. The kinds of crimes that blacks are charged with can often be serious crimes, and white people commit and receive the same sentences. So the black “narrative” on this point is a myth. I would ask, instead, why it is blacks in certain areas statistically commit the kinds of crimes that merit lengthy sentences. And that does owe to a culture of low-income, low opportunity, and a narrative that blacks can’t have the same opportunities as whites. When white people become disgusted with their circumstances, they just move out. The black narrative leads those under it to believe this isn’t possible for them. So in order to enjoy life on the same level of whites, crime is necessary (selling drugs and stolen goods, organized crime, prostitution). Also, the “white” lifestyle doesn’t preclude recreational recreational drug use. It just moves these kinds of things underground and out of sight of law enforcement. Problems occur when mind-altering substances affect behaviors that move into the public domain—meaning MORE violent and criminal behavior and the police involvement that goes with it. It creates the illusion that it’s ok for whites to do drugs and not blacks when what’s really happening is a difference of context. What CRT has done to effect change is influence changes in laws that decriminalize certain behaviors. Drug use is still illegal at the federal level, but actual enforcement has been left to the states. In some places, marijuana is legal. In Mississippi you can buy CBD and kratom. Since those things are being sold out in the open, you cannot prosecute blacks for having those things, meaning less disproportionate sentencing for non-violent offenses.

I agree with you regarding attitude. You are right. But if I were arguing CRT, I’d tell you “attitude” is just something white people say. What I would do, what I ACTUALLY do, is emphasize the role of the individual in effecting PERSONAL change. Someone treats you differently because he’s a racist? Then avoid him. Don’t try to change him. Let your own achievement speak for itself and embrace the world with an attitude of gratitude.

Partially, yes, I agree with you. But it’s also hard to ignore the objective good that it brought with it. Native Americans arguably benefitted from trade with Europeans. Native Americans continue to benefit from the innovations the British brought with them in establishing the colonies. The formation of the United States and American ingenuity contributed to a positive, improved quality of life they’d never have had otherwise—and by that I mean modern, tribal schools that recruit the best teachers, modern housing (federally funded, of course), and access to every opportunity all Americans enjoy. What’s keeping Native Americans from enjoying the same level of wealth as others is entirely cultural. They lack the complexity of the welfare system everyone else has to deal with, so conventional, modern labor is not a cultural priority or even a necessity for them. There’s no incentive to participate in American society. So in that sense, because they are cared for and STILL have opportunities available, the American way of life affords them much more than what they had prior to British and French exposure.

Even black slaves enjoyed a measure of security they lacked in Africa. I’m not justifying slavery by any means, but merely pointing out that British influence wasn’t entirely negative.

That said, monarchy is a form of collectivism in which power is inherited and the role of the individual is to serve the state. Because the aristocracy is hierarchical, it creates class struggle when classes need not exist. The problem is obvious: Birthright does not determine one’s fitness to rule. In ancient times when empires rose and fell, it was easy to pass knowledge and skills from parent to child. If you were a child, you’d spend all your time with your carpenter dad. Your toys were wooden items along with sharp, woodworking tools. You’d learn what each tool was, what it was used for, and you’d be responsible for getting things for dad, putting them back in their place, and keeping the shop clean and organized. You’d move on to menial, repetitive tasks, like measuring and cutting, and maybe some easy mill work. Eventually you would work as a partner with dad, train apprentices, and train your own sons the same way you learned, and maybe pass on some tricks and secrets you invented along the way.

Leadership is a skill no different than carpentry. It can be learned. So as a prince you learn history and etiquette early on. You learn who all the noble houses are. You learn relationships between different countries and people groups. Economics. Diplomacy. It becomes part of your daily existence, your habits, your thinking. It’s second nature. By the time you ascend the throne, you’ve already been in charge of the military, trade negotiations, and policy making. So in the ancient and medieval world, primogeniture just made good, practical sense.

What happens is when leaders concentrate so much power in themselves that there is no room for individuals or personal leadership. The proper role of any government is the protection of its people and maintaining law and order to ensure the freedom of its people to grow and thrive. Over time, greed and corruption seeped into the class system. The individual does not exist for himself, but for the throne. That is collectivism. And collectivism sowed the seeds for the ultimate failure of the British Empire.

No, I was talking about myself. Just when did I say such a thing?
If I was part of an historically oppressed group, that might be different.

In regard to what you wrote about Cyberdad and myself, I'll quote Luke Skywalker from the The Last Jedi: "Amazing! Everything you just said is wrong."

(Sigh) What you're conveniently forgetting about those 11 black senators in 1870 is that that was during Reconstruction, when black voting rights had been protected by federal troops occupying the south. That would change when those troops had been eventually removed when Reconstruction ended, and Ex-Confederates enacted racist laws suppressing the black vote.

Blacks had more security as slaves??? As if living in their own sovereign tribes and villages with their own laws, and among their own families, hadn't provided them security!

But you implied that identity doesn’t hinge on color. In your case, that identity is bound up in your role as an oppressor.

CRT is all about narrative, so it doesn’t matter what your intentions were with what you said. For someone schooled in CRT, your little micro aggression there would not have gone unnoticed.

Exactly what you can expect when WHITE PEOPLE “offer” to “help.” You really think a white solution was ever going to fix a problem white people caused in the first place?

If it provided them with security, why didn’t it keep them from becoming slaves? In America, foreign invasion wasn’t something they’d have to worry about. With few exceptions, that remains the case.

You're just being obstinate, refusing to see something without the scope of your conservative opinions.