I can field that one; untangling that sort of dreary, onerous rhetorical confusion is one of my specialties. (Of course, I love hassling that garbage out! A labor of love!)
Critical Race Theory originated as a formal legal concept, with legal proofs, reliant on demonstrating the existence of structural bias in institutions in ways that ar…
I can field that one; untangling that sort of dreary, onerous rhetorical confusion is one of my specialties. (Of course, I love hassling that garbage out! A labor of love!)
Critical Race Theory originated as a formal legal concept, with legal proofs, reliant on demonstrating the existence of structural bias in institutions in ways that are unfair to nonwhites (in hiring and loan practices, for example), in order to obtain legal remedies for that injustice. It's about what might be termed Legacy Racism, hangover effects that existing within the halls of institutional power. Which is a real thing.
This is what the people claiming that CRT is "only a high-level concept taught in law schools" are saying: they're referring to a specific and detailed set of legal arguments and settled case law. That's the strict definition, in the original sense.
But the people making that argument are also hand-waving away the reality that Critical Race Theory has undergone so much mission creep in the minds and agendas of the Wokist cult that its precepts have been over-generalized to the point of being an open-ended strategy. That's the version of CRT that's is turning up in places like the public schools, and in popular conversation. The Wokists are manipulating vulgarized CRT points to claim that any correlation showing a disparity of outcomes between people of European ancestry (and sometimes other ethnic groups) and "nonwhites" (but most often native-born Americans of African ancestry) MUST be due to "white supremacy." As if this was still 1890. And that no dissent is allowed, either in respect to examining the problem or in challenging the solutions imposed by Wokism, because error has no rights. So if you're white and you offer disagreement on any point, you'll be attacked, vilified, pilloried, etc. While as a rule, black critics of Wokism are granted a pass of sorts, on account of the assumption of their status of oppression: they're aren't attacked, they're ignored. And I mean really ignored. They aren't even slandered as "self-hating"; they're just disappeared from the conversation. At least that's the way it is so far, in my observation. If someone knows of a single broadcast news panel show on TV- or radio, or Youtube- where Adolph Reed or John McWorther is sitting at the same table as Van Jones or Charles Blow, by all means, share the details.
I thought that was the original definition of structural racism. Old laws designed to keep "certain demographics" in their "own" separate neighborhoods or employments. "Oh too bad you don't have the right licenses." "No, no, no, this certification will not work here." "Sorry, but your down payment is not large enough." Eventually, most of the actual racists have been out of power, but many of their laws are still on the books and still having the intended effect.
I know the difference. Of course the explanation of one usually involves the methodical breakdown of the concept with examples provided and the other usually involves a non sequitur of incoherent screaming.
This is what I'm getting at in other threads, most people don't have even a slight chance of distinguishing between structural and systemic racism (at least in my universe), there's no way they can explain why one is CRT and the other isn't, why one is damaging and one might not be, so it's accurate to say they don't know what they're talking about when the acronym CRT comes out of their mouth.
Well said. Basically its a real theory that has become a stand for the woke and they are using the legal theory as a tool or a distraction. Kinds of like New Shimmer being a floor wax and a dessert topping. (From back in the days when SNL was actually funny.)
Sorry. Still no dice. I was at law school during the time in question. And knew critical theorists.
This is not a study of institutional racism.
CRT isn’t vulgarized anything. And it didn’t really originate in law school. It was born more or less in the depressed pessimistic genetic lineage of the Frankfurt school, although it’s unfair to tar everyone there as Dr Evil the way Ben Shapiro does. It originated in the wreckage of its predecessors, Critical Theory and its corollary, Critical Legal Theory, among power crazed humanities academics in 1989. It doesn’t proceed from any concern for blacks. It proceeds from Marcuse’s earlier conclusion that the dirty proles would never revolt and elevate their betters (I.e., professors) to the pinnacle of power in society, so the professors better find some rowdy minorities to make use of.
Anyway. The point is that it’s entangled in legal theory but was never just that. More importantly it was NEVER about racism. It was always always about dismantling society to create a better world order with professors on top. There are no “good intentions” in CRT. None. I wish I were kidding but I’m not.
I'm familiar with that history, too; it's "critical theory" as imported into American academia and first nurtured in literary criticism classes, entering into currency in American public discourse in the 1980s, as a strategy for reconstituting the American Left in the Reagan years. Brilliant, if you're tone-deaf about appealing to the American people. Ironically, Rush Limbaugh built his career on mocking its unexamined assumptions and hollow rectitude (thanks a lot, faux-mo American Left!) Critical theory seems to have worked well enough for the purpose of acquiring academic tenure, though.
Matters of taxonomical hairsplitting aside, the details of what you describe are correct. And it does account for the theoretical basis (such as it is) for what I've gotten to refer to as Wokism, what with its valorized axe-grinding, insufferable two-faced hypocrisy, emphasis on petty internecine witch-hunting, and demands to view human individuals categorically- and often exclusively- on the basis of of a handful of attributed status characteristics. The level of sophistry of American Wokists is not nearly as highbrow as the pretensions of Theory as espoused by products of the Frankfurt School, like Herbert Marcuse. The pseudologic of consequentialism is the same, though.
FYI I’m doing this on an iPad which tantalizes me with a quick glimpse of a reply box to me to fat-thumb my way into before abruptly jumping to a random comment far, far away. Anyway.
There’s a lot of storytelling to be done in the fight against wokeism. It’s critical to step back from the fray, disengage from the idiotic arguments conducted on their terms, and start with a contextual framework for understanding whats happening. James Lindsay does this well but his work is quite long. We need a primer. The 7 principles of CRT and where they came from. The 5 goals of wokeism. The wokeism spew nonsense of a living and it’s not fair to demand working stiffs go from their shifts straight to a debate on postmodernism just to keep their son from being castrated.
such a primer would be super helpful, not just for engaging in a fight but for everyone else trying to understand what the fight is really about. The seeming lack of a concise delineation of what is and isn't CRT (because this seems to matter a lot, probably for good reason) for the average rando means most people are not talking about the same thing, not to mention everyone on the sidelines watching a retarded discourse over this strange thing 'CRT'
asking as someone who actually really doesn't know exactly wtf is CRT, do you have a source you recommend that details the intricacies of what it is vs what it isn't?
Watch everything by James Lindsay. Start with the conversations he has on the beach. I don’t agree with everything he says but it’s a great education. It won’t make sense at first until you keep at it.
Thanks for this excerpt, I'll look it up to hear the rest. It would have a better impact if it didn't present like hip-shot unnuanced propaganda, but I say that as an ignoramus on critical theory so maybe I'll be taking that back. Also, in the intro, I could swap in '4-chord song' for 'Critical Theory' and it would remain an equally 'revolutionizing' critique.
Well, I don't find the satire that effective. People joke about the simplicity of 4-chord music, yet that's the framework used by some of the most beloved music ever written, hardly an absurd framework despite its simplicity. That something can be easily copied to extend the framework is probably a virtue of a good framework rather than a bad one, albeit not enough alone to make it good obviously.
Thanks for this list - it's very concise with lots of nuance.
I already feel like Linsday is only going to get me the Lindsay version of critical theory and CRT, which is ok (heh literally/ironically the critical theory of critical theory, or nearly so). His version (and critique thereof) seems popular and widely-accepted among the detractors. I don't disagree that any of the bullet points above describe approaches that are counter-productive and damaging (racism is not solved by more racism), this is the easy part.
What's not clear to outside observers (or at least me) is which part of this is truly CRT or some 'vulgarized' (to borrow another commenter's coinage) derivative taken to an extreme. This distinction matters even in these comments, with detractors deploying 'you don't even know what it is' against each other. It's swampy. In the last few days the most I can really confirm in my mind is that 'CRT' is not a useful term. Even 'reverse racism' is far more understandable as a term for describing this stuff.
I can field that one; untangling that sort of dreary, onerous rhetorical confusion is one of my specialties. (Of course, I love hassling that garbage out! A labor of love!)
Critical Race Theory originated as a formal legal concept, with legal proofs, reliant on demonstrating the existence of structural bias in institutions in ways that are unfair to nonwhites (in hiring and loan practices, for example), in order to obtain legal remedies for that injustice. It's about what might be termed Legacy Racism, hangover effects that existing within the halls of institutional power. Which is a real thing.
This is what the people claiming that CRT is "only a high-level concept taught in law schools" are saying: they're referring to a specific and detailed set of legal arguments and settled case law. That's the strict definition, in the original sense.
But the people making that argument are also hand-waving away the reality that Critical Race Theory has undergone so much mission creep in the minds and agendas of the Wokist cult that its precepts have been over-generalized to the point of being an open-ended strategy. That's the version of CRT that's is turning up in places like the public schools, and in popular conversation. The Wokists are manipulating vulgarized CRT points to claim that any correlation showing a disparity of outcomes between people of European ancestry (and sometimes other ethnic groups) and "nonwhites" (but most often native-born Americans of African ancestry) MUST be due to "white supremacy." As if this was still 1890. And that no dissent is allowed, either in respect to examining the problem or in challenging the solutions imposed by Wokism, because error has no rights. So if you're white and you offer disagreement on any point, you'll be attacked, vilified, pilloried, etc. While as a rule, black critics of Wokism are granted a pass of sorts, on account of the assumption of their status of oppression: they're aren't attacked, they're ignored. And I mean really ignored. They aren't even slandered as "self-hating"; they're just disappeared from the conversation. At least that's the way it is so far, in my observation. If someone knows of a single broadcast news panel show on TV- or radio, or Youtube- where Adolph Reed or John McWorther is sitting at the same table as Van Jones or Charles Blow, by all means, share the details.
Well VA just delivered some critical reality theory
This is beautiful.
I thought that was the original definition of structural racism. Old laws designed to keep "certain demographics" in their "own" separate neighborhoods or employments. "Oh too bad you don't have the right licenses." "No, no, no, this certification will not work here." "Sorry, but your down payment is not large enough." Eventually, most of the actual racists have been out of power, but many of their laws are still on the books and still having the intended effect.
Don’t confuse structural and systemic racism. The latter is part of CRT.
I know the difference. Of course the explanation of one usually involves the methodical breakdown of the concept with examples provided and the other usually involves a non sequitur of incoherent screaming.
That's a good point. The two terms are all too easily misused as synonymous.
This is what I'm getting at in other threads, most people don't have even a slight chance of distinguishing between structural and systemic racism (at least in my universe), there's no way they can explain why one is CRT and the other isn't, why one is damaging and one might not be, so it's accurate to say they don't know what they're talking about when the acronym CRT comes out of their mouth.
Well said. Basically its a real theory that has become a stand for the woke and they are using the legal theory as a tool or a distraction. Kinds of like New Shimmer being a floor wax and a dessert topping. (From back in the days when SNL was actually funny.)
Sorry. Still no dice. I was at law school during the time in question. And knew critical theorists.
This is not a study of institutional racism.
CRT isn’t vulgarized anything. And it didn’t really originate in law school. It was born more or less in the depressed pessimistic genetic lineage of the Frankfurt school, although it’s unfair to tar everyone there as Dr Evil the way Ben Shapiro does. It originated in the wreckage of its predecessors, Critical Theory and its corollary, Critical Legal Theory, among power crazed humanities academics in 1989. It doesn’t proceed from any concern for blacks. It proceeds from Marcuse’s earlier conclusion that the dirty proles would never revolt and elevate their betters (I.e., professors) to the pinnacle of power in society, so the professors better find some rowdy minorities to make use of.
Anyway. The point is that it’s entangled in legal theory but was never just that. More importantly it was NEVER about racism. It was always always about dismantling society to create a better world order with professors on top. There are no “good intentions” in CRT. None. I wish I were kidding but I’m not.
I'm familiar with that history, too; it's "critical theory" as imported into American academia and first nurtured in literary criticism classes, entering into currency in American public discourse in the 1980s, as a strategy for reconstituting the American Left in the Reagan years. Brilliant, if you're tone-deaf about appealing to the American people. Ironically, Rush Limbaugh built his career on mocking its unexamined assumptions and hollow rectitude (thanks a lot, faux-mo American Left!) Critical theory seems to have worked well enough for the purpose of acquiring academic tenure, though.
Matters of taxonomical hairsplitting aside, the details of what you describe are correct. And it does account for the theoretical basis (such as it is) for what I've gotten to refer to as Wokism, what with its valorized axe-grinding, insufferable two-faced hypocrisy, emphasis on petty internecine witch-hunting, and demands to view human individuals categorically- and often exclusively- on the basis of of a handful of attributed status characteristics. The level of sophistry of American Wokists is not nearly as highbrow as the pretensions of Theory as espoused by products of the Frankfurt School, like Herbert Marcuse. The pseudologic of consequentialism is the same, though.
FYI I’m doing this on an iPad which tantalizes me with a quick glimpse of a reply box to me to fat-thumb my way into before abruptly jumping to a random comment far, far away. Anyway.
There’s a lot of storytelling to be done in the fight against wokeism. It’s critical to step back from the fray, disengage from the idiotic arguments conducted on their terms, and start with a contextual framework for understanding whats happening. James Lindsay does this well but his work is quite long. We need a primer. The 7 principles of CRT and where they came from. The 5 goals of wokeism. The wokeism spew nonsense of a living and it’s not fair to demand working stiffs go from their shifts straight to a debate on postmodernism just to keep their son from being castrated.
such a primer would be super helpful, not just for engaging in a fight but for everyone else trying to understand what the fight is really about. The seeming lack of a concise delineation of what is and isn't CRT (because this seems to matter a lot, probably for good reason) for the average rando means most people are not talking about the same thing, not to mention everyone on the sidelines watching a retarded discourse over this strange thing 'CRT'
asking as someone who actually really doesn't know exactly wtf is CRT, do you have a source you recommend that details the intricacies of what it is vs what it isn't?
Watch everything by James Lindsay. Start with the conversations he has on the beach. I don’t agree with everything he says but it’s a great education. It won’t make sense at first until you keep at it.
Thanks for this excerpt, I'll look it up to hear the rest. It would have a better impact if it didn't present like hip-shot unnuanced propaganda, but I say that as an ignoramus on critical theory so maybe I'll be taking that back. Also, in the intro, I could swap in '4-chord song' for 'Critical Theory' and it would remain an equally 'revolutionizing' critique.
Well, I don't find the satire that effective. People joke about the simplicity of 4-chord music, yet that's the framework used by some of the most beloved music ever written, hardly an absurd framework despite its simplicity. That something can be easily copied to extend the framework is probably a virtue of a good framework rather than a bad one, albeit not enough alone to make it good obviously.
Thanks for this list - it's very concise with lots of nuance.
I already feel like Linsday is only going to get me the Lindsay version of critical theory and CRT, which is ok (heh literally/ironically the critical theory of critical theory, or nearly so). His version (and critique thereof) seems popular and widely-accepted among the detractors. I don't disagree that any of the bullet points above describe approaches that are counter-productive and damaging (racism is not solved by more racism), this is the easy part.
What's not clear to outside observers (or at least me) is which part of this is truly CRT or some 'vulgarized' (to borrow another commenter's coinage) derivative taken to an extreme. This distinction matters even in these comments, with detractors deploying 'you don't even know what it is' against each other. It's swampy. In the last few days the most I can really confirm in my mind is that 'CRT' is not a useful term. Even 'reverse racism' is far more understandable as a term for describing this stuff.
Thanks for this rundown.
"Adolph Reed or John McWorther is sitting at the same table as Van Jones or Charles Blow" if only...
Hear hear! Well said.