Its not my construct but the work of many scholars - here is one that is particularly good because she makes it simple. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.90.8.1212
For profit research is not the same thing. You've happened upon the pay to play 2020 version of the tobacco industry playbook of denial (using Quillette and the Manhattan Institute as intermediaries). Not the same thing as:
We are talking about federally funded research here. The people you name are not serious researchers - who have spent their entire careers studying the subject.
The two sources you cite engender about as much trust as someone who thinks they can do surgery because they stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. Its not a topic to vacation at, you are either studying the social determinants of health or you have some sort of filtered opinion (which is called anecdotal).
As someone who has research published in peer-reviewed journals, I can tell you for a fact that what you appear call "non-profit" research is just as biased as for-profit research. Publication is a game of getting the right people as co-authors and finding topics that are "acceptable" to the journal editors.
Your credibility, the process for peer reviewed research (which can be biased), and the publication game are not the central issues of the point being made.
Who do you believe?
Heather McDonald or Glen Loury who are writers or lifelong academics who have research the social determinants of health (17 in all - each with Doctorate/MD in a field that is specific to this research).
Don't know? Well then, maybe spend the 4hours watching the documentary of their work - It ran on PBS for about 6 months and received awards from the National Academy of Sciences & Institutes of Medicine.
Do you not realize that Glenn Loury is an academic? Quillette is a publication that is filled with academics that are not able to get their ideas published due to the biases I referenced in my previous comment. While I agree that Heather MacDonald is not a great example, there are many academics out there that are trying to fight against the CRT theories you are preaching.
Quite right I did not look into Dr. Loury's background before posting - He is an economics professor who is published on race and responsibility. He's a self-styled contrarian and looks to be a productive and interesting scholar at Brown. He sounds like from his CV someone who is modeling his career after Thomas Sowell.
All for academics finding their audiences too. My audience is not CRT, and I am not preaching it as a solution or a salve. What I am saying is in direct response to posters who think Limbaugh was not racist. The average person is a poor predictors of other's racism. We are much better at identifying how we (ourselves) might replicate racism (Overt, covert/institutional, and internalized)forms.
As someone trained as a family therapist, we already the work starts with thyself, and not telling others who they should be. However, when confronted with ignorance, bullshit or avoidance, Brother Dr. Cornell West reminds us that "when you place a high value on the truth, you have to think for yourself".
I'd amend that to reflect upon one' self/one's relationships to create awareness so as to limit harm to others, especially people who have been systematically oppressed by systems of white supremacy.
I think that unfortunately the term "racist" has become too loaded and people have a visceral reaction to it. Personally, I have advocated for years that we are all racist. But, that is because that is how our brains have evolved. I prefer to say that we are tribal. That is unfortunately just part of human nature. Additionally you are not going to get positive reactions when you talk about white supremacy. The definition of that has recently changed and expanded to mean anytime there are different outcomes between groups. So, many are going to not respond positively to you when you say it.
As someone who also has an MA in counseling psychology I would like to push back on your desire to create in/out groups based on skin color. I do not believe that is a mentally healthy approach and will only lead to more internal strife for all.
If you have an interest in understanding an alternate perspective that I feel sheds light on some of the internal struggles of real people and debunks much of what we have been taught as fact, I found a trio of books to be very enlightening and they did a nice job building on each other.
First: The World of Patience Gromes provides a historical perspective of a women who was a 3rd generation freed slave. It describes the changes in the Black community through the first half of the 20th century.
Second: White Guilt by Shelby Steele. He provides his first hand experiences as a Black man before, during, and after the civil rights era.
Third: Winning the Race by John McWharter. He describes the reality of what happened during the post civil rights era and with data debunks many of the myths we have all been told for our entire lives. His writing supports everything you will have read in both Patience Gromes and White Guilt.
Coleman Huges, Shelby Steele, Bob Woodson, John McWhorter and Glenn Loury all have great outlets for our learning/understanding their contrarian views. I read White Guilt last summer and often reflected on the fact that it was written long before George Floyd and even Barack Obama's presidency.
That is exactly why I like all of those books. They were all written before race issues exploded (again) in the US. Too many current books seem to have a chip on their shoulder, more obsessed with proving they are right than making a clear, thoughtful argument.
Thank you for sharing, but we are not connecting on any level. Your attributions and references are off the mark.
Its ironic to mention in the same paragraph that you think its my desire is to create In/Out groups on race when you say using the term of white supremacy does not offer positive reactions.
And my counter is that by denying white supremacy, people never have to do deal with racism except on the surface, virtue signaling their intentions but the policies that would help --- never find there way home to the people who need it the most.
This analysis includes systems of power (Congress, Wall Street, Military, and Intelligence state). Of course there are token representatives trying to convince us that everything is fine, but that does not change the state of white supremacy -- denial of this causes much more internal strife in any form of analysis of race in America 2021
If you are not talking about institutional racism, and now sanctioned racist marketing from the Trump administration, then you are just not serious about the topic. The DNC are no better - they are playing the same game only hoping to catch a few more in the gotcha moments of cancel culture.
Actually we are connecting, it unfortunately is a one sided connection. Based on your comments you appear to assume that I do not understand what you are saying, and if you simply provide me with more knowledge I would finally "get it." The thing is, I have spent time over the last 10 years (since my first exposure to CRT while in my PhD program) trying to understand the thoughts and feelings of people like you. On the other hand you have shown that you are tone deaf to any other perspectives beyond your own.
I must say, I pity you. I am sorry that you have been sold a life theory that is about teaching one group they only way they can compete is to get help. I pity you for not understanding human nature. I am sad for your clients because if you bring this into the therapy room, you are creating more self-doubt into their lives.
I understand that you honestly feel you are being kind, caring, and empathetic. But doing those things while telling others they are bad, is not the definition of any of those things. I am sure you will read this and assume that I am simply not able to see what you see. I am obviously so deep in my white supremest beliefs that I cannot accept that our entire western culture is pure evil. The thing is, I believe that all humans are fallen creatures and we all deserve grace and forgiveness. We will all make mistakes and we will all inadvertently hurt someone at some point in time. I do not believe that one group is more virtuous than another because of the color of their skin.
Even though it will probably fall on deaf years, look into Keri Smith's story. She spent 20 years in the CRT culture and had a successful career from it. Through the years she realized how hollow it was and how it did more psychological harm than good to her and those around her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVSgVlZjk8c
My position is that the two articles you provided are not research. They are opinions for pay. Research starts with a research question, involves questions of design, sampling, population under study, and a whole host of factors which scientists use to replicate findings. This is important to back any claims made.
Now, you can spout your troll farm 15 types of logical fallacies brand of persuasion to attempt to convince readers here that you know what you are talking about, and taunt with competitive debate pleas, but the fact that you would offer these two "stories" in the same breadth with this group of 17 nationally recognized scholars (some who are both MDs and Phds) is absurd.
Maybe our time talking these things through is over as I am getting the corporatist shill vibe, masquerading as someone who pretends to know about research around race, research methods, credibility of authors, propaganda and pseudo writing techniques of persuasion.
A "Social Engineering" debate? Maybe anyone in grad school can grasp the meaning of that term. I'm get a vibe here that is politically incorrect thus subject to cancel. OUT,
Its not my construct but the work of many scholars - here is one that is particularly good because she makes it simple. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.90.8.1212
Please read the following two rebuttals to the scholarly work you site:
https://www.city-journal.org/achievement-gap-explains-demographic-disparities
https://quillette.com/2021/02/10/unspeakable-truths-about-racial-inequality-in-america/
These essays address the true elements of the societal ills you are concerned with. They are painful truths.
For profit research is not the same thing. You've happened upon the pay to play 2020 version of the tobacco industry playbook of denial (using Quillette and the Manhattan Institute as intermediaries). Not the same thing as:
https://unnaturalcauses.org/from_the_experts.php
We are talking about federally funded research here. The people you name are not serious researchers - who have spent their entire careers studying the subject.
The two sources you cite engender about as much trust as someone who thinks they can do surgery because they stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. Its not a topic to vacation at, you are either studying the social determinants of health or you have some sort of filtered opinion (which is called anecdotal).
As someone who has research published in peer-reviewed journals, I can tell you for a fact that what you appear call "non-profit" research is just as biased as for-profit research. Publication is a game of getting the right people as co-authors and finding topics that are "acceptable" to the journal editors.
Your credibility, the process for peer reviewed research (which can be biased), and the publication game are not the central issues of the point being made.
Who do you believe?
Heather McDonald or Glen Loury who are writers or lifelong academics who have research the social determinants of health (17 in all - each with Doctorate/MD in a field that is specific to this research).
Don't know? Well then, maybe spend the 4hours watching the documentary of their work - It ran on PBS for about 6 months and received awards from the National Academy of Sciences & Institutes of Medicine.
Do you not realize that Glenn Loury is an academic? Quillette is a publication that is filled with academics that are not able to get their ideas published due to the biases I referenced in my previous comment. While I agree that Heather MacDonald is not a great example, there are many academics out there that are trying to fight against the CRT theories you are preaching.
Quite right I did not look into Dr. Loury's background before posting - He is an economics professor who is published on race and responsibility. He's a self-styled contrarian and looks to be a productive and interesting scholar at Brown. He sounds like from his CV someone who is modeling his career after Thomas Sowell.
All for academics finding their audiences too. My audience is not CRT, and I am not preaching it as a solution or a salve. What I am saying is in direct response to posters who think Limbaugh was not racist. The average person is a poor predictors of other's racism. We are much better at identifying how we (ourselves) might replicate racism (Overt, covert/institutional, and internalized)forms.
As someone trained as a family therapist, we already the work starts with thyself, and not telling others who they should be. However, when confronted with ignorance, bullshit or avoidance, Brother Dr. Cornell West reminds us that "when you place a high value on the truth, you have to think for yourself".
I'd amend that to reflect upon one' self/one's relationships to create awareness so as to limit harm to others, especially people who have been systematically oppressed by systems of white supremacy.
I think that unfortunately the term "racist" has become too loaded and people have a visceral reaction to it. Personally, I have advocated for years that we are all racist. But, that is because that is how our brains have evolved. I prefer to say that we are tribal. That is unfortunately just part of human nature. Additionally you are not going to get positive reactions when you talk about white supremacy. The definition of that has recently changed and expanded to mean anytime there are different outcomes between groups. So, many are going to not respond positively to you when you say it.
As someone who also has an MA in counseling psychology I would like to push back on your desire to create in/out groups based on skin color. I do not believe that is a mentally healthy approach and will only lead to more internal strife for all.
If you have an interest in understanding an alternate perspective that I feel sheds light on some of the internal struggles of real people and debunks much of what we have been taught as fact, I found a trio of books to be very enlightening and they did a nice job building on each other.
First: The World of Patience Gromes provides a historical perspective of a women who was a 3rd generation freed slave. It describes the changes in the Black community through the first half of the 20th century.
Second: White Guilt by Shelby Steele. He provides his first hand experiences as a Black man before, during, and after the civil rights era.
Third: Winning the Race by John McWharter. He describes the reality of what happened during the post civil rights era and with data debunks many of the myths we have all been told for our entire lives. His writing supports everything you will have read in both Patience Gromes and White Guilt.
Coleman Huges, Shelby Steele, Bob Woodson, John McWhorter and Glenn Loury all have great outlets for our learning/understanding their contrarian views. I read White Guilt last summer and often reflected on the fact that it was written long before George Floyd and even Barack Obama's presidency.
That is exactly why I like all of those books. They were all written before race issues exploded (again) in the US. Too many current books seem to have a chip on their shoulder, more obsessed with proving they are right than making a clear, thoughtful argument.
Thank you for sharing, but we are not connecting on any level. Your attributions and references are off the mark.
Its ironic to mention in the same paragraph that you think its my desire is to create In/Out groups on race when you say using the term of white supremacy does not offer positive reactions.
And my counter is that by denying white supremacy, people never have to do deal with racism except on the surface, virtue signaling their intentions but the policies that would help --- never find there way home to the people who need it the most.
This analysis includes systems of power (Congress, Wall Street, Military, and Intelligence state). Of course there are token representatives trying to convince us that everything is fine, but that does not change the state of white supremacy -- denial of this causes much more internal strife in any form of analysis of race in America 2021
If you are not talking about institutional racism, and now sanctioned racist marketing from the Trump administration, then you are just not serious about the topic. The DNC are no better - they are playing the same game only hoping to catch a few more in the gotcha moments of cancel culture.
Actually we are connecting, it unfortunately is a one sided connection. Based on your comments you appear to assume that I do not understand what you are saying, and if you simply provide me with more knowledge I would finally "get it." The thing is, I have spent time over the last 10 years (since my first exposure to CRT while in my PhD program) trying to understand the thoughts and feelings of people like you. On the other hand you have shown that you are tone deaf to any other perspectives beyond your own.
I must say, I pity you. I am sorry that you have been sold a life theory that is about teaching one group they only way they can compete is to get help. I pity you for not understanding human nature. I am sad for your clients because if you bring this into the therapy room, you are creating more self-doubt into their lives.
I understand that you honestly feel you are being kind, caring, and empathetic. But doing those things while telling others they are bad, is not the definition of any of those things. I am sure you will read this and assume that I am simply not able to see what you see. I am obviously so deep in my white supremest beliefs that I cannot accept that our entire western culture is pure evil. The thing is, I believe that all humans are fallen creatures and we all deserve grace and forgiveness. We will all make mistakes and we will all inadvertently hurt someone at some point in time. I do not believe that one group is more virtuous than another because of the color of their skin.
Even though it will probably fall on deaf years, look into Keri Smith's story. She spent 20 years in the CRT culture and had a successful career from it. Through the years she realized how hollow it was and how it did more psychological harm than good to her and those around her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVSgVlZjk8c
Your response does not address the issues in the articles cited. This is a classic logical fallacy.
Your position that these are not Federally funded thus not credible is laughable.
Please address the points made in the articles.
If you decline I will assume you cannot debate.
Thank you,
My position is that the two articles you provided are not research. They are opinions for pay. Research starts with a research question, involves questions of design, sampling, population under study, and a whole host of factors which scientists use to replicate findings. This is important to back any claims made.
Now, you can spout your troll farm 15 types of logical fallacies brand of persuasion to attempt to convince readers here that you know what you are talking about, and taunt with competitive debate pleas, but the fact that you would offer these two "stories" in the same breadth with this group of 17 nationally recognized scholars (some who are both MDs and Phds) is absurd.
Academia gets a lot of things wrong, but anyone who has taken a basic research class in grad school can point out the difference between (Manhattan Institute & Quillette as anything but pay to play - social engineering think tanks (see here: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/about?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI1IOPu-H07gIVFovICh1wDAlPEAAYASAAEgI5U_D_BwE )
Maybe our time talking these things through is over as I am getting the corporatist shill vibe, masquerading as someone who pretends to know about research around race, research methods, credibility of authors, propaganda and pseudo writing techniques of persuasion.
A "Social Engineering" debate? Maybe anyone in grad school can grasp the meaning of that term. I'm get a vibe here that is politically incorrect thus subject to cancel. OUT,