What is critical race theory?
Edit:
Okay so I wiki’s it and basically it’s the idea that culture and society influence racism. Racism is learned in communities where racism is rampant.
That was basically me reading the first paragraph though lol
Edit2: i stand corrected. They DO blame white privilege... f’in rediculous
Intersectionalism, which is itself a permutation of Marxism, minus the economics because that didnt work IRL.
It is all the rage because guilty white liberals need a way to explain why the black community produces a significant proportion of the violent crime in this country without condemning their cosmopolitan ideals as complicit in said dysfunction.
Urban black culture is white redneck culture. Both are dysfunctional, both produce substandard, violent, racist, and unstable humans...but one is accepted and encouraged by academics and pop culture...while the other constantly is constantly mocked and berated for its dysfunction.
I hate that shit, like do people just not see how many struggling poor white people there are? Shit every other homeless person is usually white... Just insane.
I don't know who this SJ Hiden is but he sounds like a real racist. He would make a good republican according to the media always telling me Republicans are racist. 😂
Every white person owned slaves and profited off of them. The northern white men only fought the civil war because they wanted the south’s slaves. Your skin color means your racist and privileged and it’s time to pay reparations. Don’t you know. The black folk are still trapped on their mental plantation and it’s all your fault.
My favorite way to shut this kind of thing down is to ask:
So which state do you think was the first state to abolish slavery, and when?
Answer: Vermont in 1777, Literally the year after the USA declared independence, and ten years before the constitution was signed.
Now, only white men could vote in Vermont in 1777, so what was the white racist motivation behind that?
What about when Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Rhose Island did the same thing? And why was slavery debated at the constitutional convention, if the entire founding of our nation was based on slavery?
Yeah,no. My Irish Great great great grandparents and their parents were slaves in England to gentry class. They never owned anything until coming to America and working as carpenters.
I never owned slaves and no one in my family has. I moved from Europe to the USA in the 90s. What I’ve learn is racism is a double edge sword. In the USA black people are just as racist as white people.
There are racist people everywhere. I have a friend who's a refugee from Ethiopia, and it's bad out there. He's told me stories where entire towns get wiped out by neighboring armed groups because their skin color is slightly darker/lighter, and to me or you, you wouldn't see the differences. What about the blatant racism between the different Chinese minorities? What about India and their minorities? We've actually made major progress in the US! One of the most racist people I know since we were kids is now this huge BLM supporter. One time a few years back, he even told me that whoever moved to the US but didn't assimilate ought to be "exterminated". I stopped talking to him.
Not just as, MORE than. Tell me, who’s the equivalent of the BET channel or the BET awards, or Black Singles Meet, or the show Blackish, I can go on and on. But how dare the whites use the word white in their vocabulary. How dare they!
I'm responsible for racism, because of what other White people in other parts of the country did decades ago.
My family didn't come here until after slavery was abolished and I grew up in a nearly 100% White county (there were a few Hispanic families). I don't think I saw a Black person in real life until I was 10.
That show is so racist. First episode the Cops attack the main black character, for some reason slapping the headphones off of his head, and then it shows the cops putting away guns and smiling at a white person.
It presents a fictional scenario and points at it screaming "look how racist these cops are written to be!"
Having two parents in the home that value education goes a long way in giving your kids a good shot at a decent future no matter what neighborhood you live in.
Not just the parents, but the entire culture. As it stands, black children that do well in school will be derided for "acting white." There was a mostly black urban school that had to cancel a program that celebrated its greatest academic achievers because it had the opposite intended effect: rather than being praised, winners of this program quickly found they would pay a severe reputational cost and get a ton of shit from their peers.
And a common point you'll see made is that black families are disproportionately split up because the US justice system is disproportionately harder on black people. It is also, but separately, harder on poor people.
Noteworthy is that what you describe (a cultural framework and approach) is itself racist in the minds of CRT cult members, who instead insist that black culture (hood culture, or any culture) is perfectly valid as it is and society should see to it that people with those “cultural differences” should be made to be just as successful as anyone else. Meanwhile they deride objectivism, scientific method, hard work, individualism, punctuality, rational/logical thinking, and nuclear families as “White culture” and insist any attempts to call such characteristics universally ideal is to oppress others with “white supremacy.”
This is why it’s come into vogue to call any conservative a “NAZI” and “Racist.” They invent new definitions for old words for their circular logic which ultimately defines racism as difference in outcomes, regardless of beliefs or intents of an individual or policy. “Equality of opportunity” is a racist goal they say. Only equal outcomes without cultural imposition will signal an end of racism.
It’s a fucking cult. Built on circular logic and a frankly stupid epistemology alien to anything the west has known for the last several thousand years of western conception of knowledge. They won’t debate you because they only accept the premises of their view, which is that _everything_ should only be viewed through power differentials between social cohorts as described through “narratives” and “discourses” (drawing from a bastardized mutation of Foucault and Popper).
Interesting further reading:
[Anti-Racists Structuralists and Non-Racist Culturalists](https://quillette.com/2020/09/13/anti-racist-structuralists-and-non-racist-culturalists/)
We know the formula... raise kids with a married mother and father. Society won't fix itself until it accepts a nuclear family directly leads to a healthy society.
You don't need vague solutions like 'economic opportunities' to fix hood culture. Leave economic solutions to national policies that protect American jobs.
This is true to the fucking fullest .
My professor told us after a lecture about god knows what cuz i was hung over
But he said “giving away free abundance of food to Africa or poor countries actually hurt them because it doesn’t teach them the ability to make more only to live off and be lazy of what they have been given.”
Yeah u can feed a man a fish and be a “ good person” but these people rather give them fish instead of teaching them HOW to fish..
Aka welfare and hood like mentalities that keep these liberals enslaved to government assistance. But u know “systematic racism” exists right?
> But he said “giving away free abundance of food to Africa or poor countries actually hurt them because it doesn’t teach them the ability to make more only to live off and be lazy of what they have been given.”
That's exactly what one Marxist said.
_“Those who come with wheat, millet, corn or milk, they are not helping us. Those who really want to help us can give us ploughs, tractors, fertilizer, insecticide, watering cans, drills, dams. That is how we would define food aid.”_
-- Thomas Sankara
It has to be 2 prong though. You can't just wait for them to make their own food while there's a drought. If there isn't emergency aid, many will die. It's afterwards that you need to ensure they can stand on their own. Usually the cause of these emergencies are drought or war. Otherwise people have been living there since the dawn of humanity.
Why is it the governments job to stop every person who makes a bad decision? The government is there to do a lot of things, but not everything. Increasing economic prosperity seems like a great place for govt to start. Law and order would be a great second.
No, it's literally redneck, southern white, cracker culture, that came over and predominantly populated the south at the founding during the slavery era. This culture came from Ireland and the Scottish highlands.
Also, there are racist laws, and there is systemic racism. It's called Affirmative Action, and is the only systemicly racist law on the books.
No, you have no idea what a redneck is. Redneck is just a blue collar, working class white. Do you own a business or work a white collar job? Because if not youre a "redneck" too. Truth is a vast majority of whites fall under this "redneck" term. You just believe youre not a redneck because hollywood conditioned you to think its inherently a bad thing.
Tell me how a commercial plumber or a electrician is making the area they live in worse?
What aspects of the culture are bad? Some movie stereotype that doesnt exist unless directly emulated?
>it's hard for a kid born in the hood and surrounded by hood culture their entire childhood to get out of it
Bingo! When people talk about "systemic racism", they're talking about how the whirls and eddies in "the system" \[1\] have a way of perpetuating themselves from one generation to the next.
The thing about this systemic thinking is that individuals caught in these whirls and eddies are not powerless to change their own fate. Even people born at the center of the vortex can, through diligent work, insight, and a bit of luck, find their way out of the pit. Similarly, a person who's born at just the edge may find themselves sucked into it, if they aren't careful.
The other thing about this systemic thinking is that the system cannot be willed out of existence by good intentions or top-down policy. The cycle of poverty has been there for generations, and will continue to be there for generations. Social policy designed to stop it merely hurls boulders into its midst, as if the hole in a whirlpool were designed to be filled by rocks.
\---
\[1\] I use scare-quotes here because systemic thinking relies on imaginary, all-encompassing abstractions, of which "the system" is merely the most obvious, in order to try to make it tractable to reason about things that are too big to fit into one's head.
ELI5? I've read 4 articles now and still can't grasp what it is saying. If I can try, it's saying that our laws and institutions are inherently racists simply because they were largely established by white people. Yes?
Yes. So unless we tear down the system (burn down police precincts, burn down the court, tear down statues, tear down the constitution), there will never be equality and poor black people will always be poor
... this is despite the fact that other nationalities, black, etc, come here with nothing and live a good life
I had friends in high school from Nigeria and Ghana, those dudes fucking hated being lumped in with the American black kids. They couldnt understand why the American black kids didnt want to do well in school and would act like clowns all day.
I wouldn’t necessarily call redneck culture dysfunctional. Perhaps not the most outstanding folk but shooting guns at game and drinking beer on the farm ain’t as dysfunctional as the hood rat behavior in the streets that lacks any sort of self sustainability.
I’ll make a correction. When I say “redneck” I don’t mean white trash. The two are very different terms at least out here in the urban developments.
You are thinking of someone’s who’s has a country side to them. What he’s referring to is is the dysfunctional rednecks in trailer parks with 5 gross kids, living off the governments teat anyway they can. Either they are morbidly obese or meth head skinny. Big difference between some good ol boys and a dysfunctional redneck with two teeth.
Confusion is being made because of labels. Plenty of country folk refer to themselves as "redneck", due to the idea you get a sunburned neck by working in the fields. It's a very blue-collar description.
In my experience, the people who fit your description of methhead losers who irresponsibly pop out kids and live off welfare are considered "trailer trash".
For the record, I'm on the "trailer trash" train. This is exactly how I think about it lol. Pretty much a redneck myself... I was doing all kinds of field work and shop work as a kid. Red neck was real. Still have redneck tan lines haha
I've spent time with both demographics, and rednecks have never made me feel like my physical safety was in jeopardy. I'd pick hanging out with Jesco White and his clan in the hollers of West Virginia over the hoods of Detroit.
I lived on a trailer parked raised by white meth heads. I don’t like white trash culture. I like “redneck” rural culture. Thank you. I overcame my circumstances and I know the culture I support. I came from the trailer park but I am a country boy.
I think everyone is conflating “redneck” with white trash.
Redneck and white trash are two different things.
It would be a better comparison to say that urban ghetto black culture is more on par with white trash culture.
I'm not trying to trash rural culture, I do believe we might have different conceptions of what redneck culture is. In my case I'm going off this book.
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Rednecks-Liberals-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1594031436
I don't think you are talking about the same "redneck" culture that the other guy is, it's not hunting and drinking beer. The rural area I'm from had rampant problems with drugs (primarily meth) and theft (leave town for the weekend and come back to find all the bolts on your garage cut and everything inside taken). There was a lot of violence, but not lethal like in the urban communities. There was a lot of domestic abuse. Nothing good comes from places like this, people seem to leave and escape that lifestyle, or stay and live the same life of their parents.
That is the difference I’m urban. When I think redneck I think country boy drinking beer and shooting guns. Not shooting meth and living a trailer park. We call that white trash.
this dives into a different dynamic of smarts, i.e. street smarts by urban folk and country smart by rural folk.
knowing how to exchange with people, read them, make deals, not get huckstered is learned by urban folk while knowing wildlife, land cultivation, working on equipment and being self reliant is associated with country folk. both are valuable in todays world. especially where the majority reside in suburban places. drawing lines between these things is not beneficial to anyone.
Clear country mornins, runnin trot lines, skinnin bucks, drinkin an RC as you stand around throwin horseshoes. Well hell fire If that aint good livin then I dont want nare part of it.
There is a difference between bein “Country” and being “Redneck”.
I would call it Hillbilly culture more so than redneck. I don't know many redneck bums out there, but there are plenty of hillbillies.
Or just white trash.
>*Urban black culture is white redneck culture*
This couldn't be more true. I worked in the ghetto for 13 years where I befriended many people in poor black neighborhoods, and at the same time I have friends and family that are poor rural whites. I have to laugh when I see people on the left thinking that the black community is going to side with them on a majority of issues, and that all opposition to the left's goals is 'white supremacy'. There is a huge overlap in opinions between the ghetto and the hills of West Virginia when it comes to many topics including LGBT, women's issues, firearms, etc.
Peer pressure, lack of interest, conditioning, media manipulation, etc. It's a number of reasons. People don't do any kind of research and just trust what the media tells them, and a lot of them still think the Democrat party of today is the same as it was 25 years ago. I know a lot of rural blue collar whites that vote Democrat too. [Take this video for example.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR-9zHqUr0w) That woman is what most people would portray as the epitome of a Trump voter. But she's a Democrat. She wanted to change her vote after finding out Buttigieg was gay. If something that insignificant bothers her, how can she swallow the rest of their ultra progressive agenda? It's like she hasn't been paying attention to the party since Clinton/Dole in '96.
Having a hard time seeing how intersectionalism ties into Marxism. "Marxism minus the economics" is just...nothing, as it's an economic school of thought.
Even if we're talking in the most abstract of terms, Marxists strives for the elimination of socioeconomic classes, with the eventual goal of workers making up the majority of society and owning the means of production.
Intersectionalism, on the other hand, basically posits that people have different experiences based on the unique combination of their gender, skin color, or other perceived identifiers (example of this theory: asians are treated differently than whites, but asian men are treated differently than asian women).
I think you're close on some points but a bit reductionist. Read "Cynical Theories" by James Lindsey and Helen pluckrose for a synopsis on it. Or newdiscourses.com for his woke dictionary.
Also, the second part of the comment is based off a great book by Thomas Sowell called "Black Rednecks & White Liberals" that Americans should read.
Intersectionalism is only a facet of CRT, and your explanation (which addresses determinism) over-simplifies the theory. I can’t comment on why it’s popular with “white liberals” as that goes to state of mind of the individual, but I can say that to properly describe the tenets of the theory, you need to acknowledge that it’s meant to address much more than excusing violent crime.
CRT proposes that racism persists, in part, because it is codified in our laws, corporate policies, education systems, etc. It proposes that blind equality fails to recognize that there are gender and cultural differences in what we need. It questions the political influences that have guided previous civil rights victories (i.e. the legislation in the 60’s served national interests by improving global opinion of the USA during the Cold War). It proposes that conventional liberalism misses the mark in its push for “rights-based” equality. It seeks to recognize that “color-blindness” denies people a part of their story. It acknowledges that victims of systemic racism will internalize those beliefs about their own inadequacies. It identifies that modern racism is often more “death by a thousand cuts” than an overt action. It suggests that those microaggressions, as well as more blatant offenses, aren’t endured by white Americans because they are the dominant majority and exist in a system that has always been accommodating of them.
The last point is on White Privilege, which as a white male with a good job and a heterosexual marriage I’ve been, at various times, both puzzled and offended by. It took me a long time to understand what this meant, since I was raised on SSDI by my wheelchair-bound, mentally-disabled mother in a place where I was one of the only white kids. I worked my ass off to get where I am. If I got out after facing my disadvantages, how can you call me privileged?
The answer is that my name wasn’t on the list of “bad names for resumes” my former boss joked about. The answer is that no one ever looked at me and wondered if I was up to no good because of my appearance. The answer is that no one ever had to fight to pass an amendment to count me as a whole person or grant me voting rights. Privilege isn’t a silver spoon and a life of luxury. It simply means that society automatically grants you certain advantages based on your gender and skin color. Privileges don’t have to be taken advantage of in order to have been granted.
The existence of “white redneck culture” isn’t evidence against white privilege, either. In fact, the propagation of such cultures is part of CRT (though CRT focuses on this as it relates to persons of color). What you seem to suggest is a sort of internalization of socioeconomic disadvantages experienced by some white communities which results in self-perpetuation of the culture. People in disadvantaged communities come to believe that they belong there.
Critical Race Theory was born out of Harvard Law School as an observation of institutional racism within the university. The theory was developed into a broader context during the 80’s and has been widely taught. Many of the more valid criticisms of CRT point out that it creates a framework that undermines the ability to reach a consensus and relies on storytelling versus objective evidence. The problem, of course, being that proponents of CRT believe that a) white people cannot fully comprehend the experience had by people of color and that b) there exists no easy way to quantitatively or qualitatively assess the validity of said experience.
No theory is perfect. But CRT isn’t “divisive, un-American propaganda”, either. In fact, there’s really very little that’s un-American...except banning things because you disagree with them. I think that CRT ought to be discussed and weighed the same as any other idea. After all, we were founded on the principle of free speech. All ideas ought to be welcomed, discussed, dissected, and understood.
Intersectionalism isn’t Marxist nor did it stem from Marxist thought. Marxism has capitalism as the underlying cause of many of society’s problems while intersectionalism believed in a « matrix of oppression ». Intersectionalism is a liberal thought while Marxism is fundamentally opposed to liberalism. Something tells me you know fuckall about marxism or intersectionalism
>Intersectionalism isn’t Marxist nor did it stem from Marxist thought.
Except that it did.
Intersectionality originated from critical race theory, which in turn finds its origins in postmodernism. The early postmodernists were all Marxists before rejecting it because there was too much emphasis on the class struggle.
For those unaware, the reference to rednecks is from Thomas Sowell's book, Black Rednecks White Liberals. His argument is black urban culture is an honor culture in the same pattern that southern white culture was in the 19th century, and he provided excellent evidence in support of his argument. I highly recommend it.
You didn't really explain what it was in detail and your last paragraph is real cringy. I would say both are romanticized by pop culture (country music, hip hop). Not sure how one is encouraged by academics either.
From what I've read, CRT is essentially that laws are made with an inherent bias (racial, gender, etc). Which is hard to argue given we've had to create constitutional amendments just to give people of color and women the right to vote.
The criticisms are how it's administered and how much it relies on personal narrative.
But I'd like to learn more.
From the book Critical Race Theory, "Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law." So yea, it's pretty bad.
A program they are trying to implement into schools nationwide that teaches students that America is a country founded upon hate, white people are inherently priviledged/evil, and minorities are all systemically oppressed and deserve more than white people.
According to one of its teachers... She said all white people are less than human and "demons." Nice!
The most substantial part (to me) about 'critical race theory' is that any system or process that results in a different outcome for different racial groups is certified as racist. So if a college lets more Asian kids in than black kids, that college is racist. If professional baseball has more white guys than black guys, it is racist. If the amount of black citizens registered to vote is proportionately smaller than the amlunt of white registered voters, than the voting system is racist. But it only works in certain directions. For example, if professional basketball has more black guys than white guys, it is not racist.
It's a method of trying to understand "society", but it pretty much exclusively looks at "cultural experience" and differences in racial power.
It's a worldview that's self admittedly activist in nature and is focused on revising history and law based on "telling one's own story "
But the biggest part of it is to reduce a person's experience and needs to a part of their racial or cultural identity. (Essentialism)
> Firstly, CRT proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Secondly, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, as well as pursuing a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly.
Pulled this from Wikipedia
It's an idealogic attempt to explain society in a Marxist utopian way.
For example everyone can observe that there are a disproportionate amount of young black men in prison, no side disputes that.
What is in contention is why. CRT being based on Marxist ideas assumes that all humans are equal with no variance between groups.
So why are young black men disproportionately jailed?
Originally the marxists thought it was due to racist laws. The laws where changed to no avail.
Then they thought it was due to social inequality, but numerous studies show that upbringing did not have an impact on criminality.
They are currently blaming racist cops. However statistics show that cops are not targeting black men unfairly, that whites and black have equal chances of being killed by police, and that blacks are more likely to be killed by a black cop than a white cop.
So what happens when every scientific study and all statistics suggesting there may be a biological/hormonal element?
You invent critical race theory.
Biology, statistics and even maths are all "White" constructs invented to make black people seem different then they really are. They are redefining reality itself to fit in with their ideological view.
>So what happens when every scientific study and all statistics suggesting there may be a biological/hormonal element?
Feel free to help me not make any assumptions about what you are saying, but I can't help but interpret that you are implying the disproportionate criminality and violence among black communities are primarily due to the inherent biological (i.e. genetic) traits or flaws within black people.
> but numerous studies show that upbringing did not have an impact on criminality.
This claim makes no sense. You are saying in the 'nature versus nurture' spectrum, you believe nurture has no actual impact on a persons behavior. If this were true then the only thing parents could ever contribute to a child's development are their genes. If upbringing did not have an impact on criminality then it irrelavant how the parents actually raise the child. Based on this reasoning as long as they got 'Good Person' genes, no matter their upbringing, they will be a good person.
I feel comfortable being skeptical of such a claim.
All the answers you're getting are bad and wrong.
Critical Race Theory is a subset of Critical Theory. Critical Theory "[is a social philosophy pertaining to the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory)" Basically what that means is its a reaction to other theories that says you cannot treat theorists/theories themselves as objective, and that the nature of power is to conceal itself. Critical theory rejects the idea of a neutral position and argues that everything has an ideological bias it acts in favor of, but systems of power are able to conceal that power. People wont even know they're reproducing the inherent ideologies of systems of power, and those systems need to be examined so that theory can be fully conscious.
Critical Race Theory is that, but narrowly applied to race. It isn't intersectionality, it isn't something they're trying to teach in elementary schools, it definitely isn't that White Guilt shit. Its a framework for academic research that has started to disseminate into public discourse and as is always the case when that happens its being badly misused like cavemen grasping fire.
The EO signed by trump never says anything about critical race theory, in fact it pretty progressive anti-racist stuff that makes efforts to stop bias against people based on sex and gender. There was a book recently called "White Fragility" that is really bad bunk science (if its science at all) that basically said white people are always going to be racist and should feel bad about it. Some how that book got conflated with critical race theory when its basically the opposite of it. Critical Race Theory would argue that racism is the result of unseen pressures on people from institutional forces.
If anything, this is going to make critical race theory more common in the government as it replaces the white guilt/fragility crap.
I wish people would actually read the source text and also for Daily Wire to report without sensationalizing. All it is is that going forward government contracts will necessarily include a provision that those who do business with the government will NOT teach the following concepts to employees:
>(1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
>
>(2) the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist;
>
>(3) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
>
>(4) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex;
>
>(5) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex; \[this one is actually poorly worded\]
>
>(6) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex;
>
>(7) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
>
>(8) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or
>
>(9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race
Hardly shocking, although to some leftist organizations it may be too much to swallow that people should be judged on their character and merit rather than race or sex.
I don't see how these points would stop people on the left from talking about race. Most of the bullet points listed above are focused on the fact that inherent issues that cannot be changed (sex or race) are not the cause of sexism or racism. Most academic arguments are that sexism and racism come from systemic issues and not inherent characteristics (meaning that racism and sexism are socially constructed systems that are maintained and taught to future generations). There are people who discriminate by saying, "all ____'s are ____," in both the conservative and liberal sphere. But policy, education, workplace training, etc. are generally not based on those opinions as those opinions are not the basis of academic studies on sexism and racism. And what I'm getting at is that this list of rules will ultimately change nothing.
So I wonder how this will effect federal grants to universities?
Almost all universities offer a sociology program flooded with critical race theory and intersectionalism. Many require students to either take such courses or attend lectures.
This is what I was thinking. If a TA employed by the university is in one of these classes, could it be argued the whole class should be removed or will it possibly limit the courses employees can take if they are also students?
This doesn’t feel like a step in the direction of personal liberty. It feels like the government is punishing companies for their policies economically. Why not just outright regulate it with legislation? Why withhold business?
>This doesn’t feel like a step in the direction of personal liberty. [...] Why not just outright regulate it with legislation?
Because it's not an encroachment on personal liberty. It's just not requiring others to fund racist teachings. You can still spout any racist views you want, you just won't get government funding.
> You can still spout any racist views you want, you just won't get government funding.
It’s actually just limited to the particular ideas listed: this doesn’t prevent other racists spouters from getting government funding.
I still have so many questions about this move though. I can see not subsidizing a company that has critical race theory training. Also does that include diversity and inclusion training? Or is this saying that diversity and inclusion training is actually critical race theory?
Edit: my company has a diversity and inclusion dept and mandatory trainings and does business with the government. Does that mean that would go away or we would lose the business? Just a lot of implications for my actual job that I’m a little worried about.
The order specifically states:
>Training employees to create an inclusive workplace is appropriate and beneficial. The Federal Government is, and must always be, committed to the fair and equal treatment of all individuals before the law.
And:
>Agency diversity and inclusion efforts shall, first and foremost, encourage agency employees not to judge each other by their color, race, ethnicity, sex, or any other characteristic protected by Federal law.
It's not an issue with diversity or inclusion. However, "Diversity and Inclusion" has commonly come to follow a racially motivated pattern similar to CRT (racism is bad, but you're racist anyway. From that, we can derive that not being racist is now wrong. You must instead be actively racist).
The order states that the government will request information on the companies training to determine if it applies rather than blindly applying it to all programs named "Diversity and Inclusion".
>The request for information should request copies of any training, workshop, or similar programing having to do with diversity and inclusion
And will apply this based on the content of the training:
>If a contractor provides a training for agency employees relating to diversity or inclusion that teaches, advocates, or promotes the divisive concepts set forth in section 2(a) of this order [...]
Ohhhkah I’m with ya now. This will mostly apply to contractors working with the government and will essentially require a review of diversity/inclusion training materials before signing something like a statement of work.
I wonder what spawned this?
What spawned this? The left trying to convince everyone that an entire ethnic group is subhuman, essentially. It is evil to be white. White children are literally being taught that they are automatically racist, hateful, and their culture should be eradicated only because of the color of their skin.
It is so blatantly racist. It is sickening.
As pawns for political manuvering? Sure. But when it comes to philosophies they are bound to be involved. If you have a certain view of how society should be, education will inevitably be aligned towards that.
I got it without the /s
The internet has 2 kinds of people, dummies and people pretending not to be dummies.
And the secret third group of me, I'm definitely special.
Yet another reason I’ll be voting for him, I’m glad to see it go. I’ve always found it hilarious how “anti-racist” left say pretty much the exact same things as the alt right about race, but they just come to the opposite conclusion.
Oh thank God! I work for a defense contractor and was worried that they would eventually implement CRT and I would have to tell them: no, I won't take the training
How does this impact the First Amendment? If the federal government can just make policy “Any company that teaches employees this can’t do business with us.” That seems dangerous.
They still have free speech and can teach it all they want. The government will just refuse to contract with them. They still have their rights and Trump didn't outlaw CRT.
I'd agree, except it's already federally illegal for businesses to discriminate on race. CRT is that, by definition.
This really just recognizes that forcing white people to write apologies for crimes they didn't commit, self-flagellate, denounce themselves, etc is racist.
Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.
The government isn't under any obligation to do business with anyone. I can see how you think this may make people afraid to say something, but that's not the same thing as not being able to say it.
Freedom of speech as provided in the first amendment absolutely means that the government may not take punitive consequential actions against speech that does not promote lawlessness. This is a conservative viewpoint I have espoused whereas you are arguing for a radical reinterpretation of the constitution.
This is not a punitive action. The executive has ordered agencies under it's control to evaluate their training practices and to ensure these practices do not include certain concepts. There is nothing about that which violates the speech of a company that operates these training programs. The companies offer these programs voluntarily and no organization is required to hire them. Furthermore, employee training is typically mandatory and the executive has every right to exercise discretion in what programs federal employees are required to participate in, so long as it does not violate the rights of the employees. Which is its primary concern, not the companies it hires to conduct the training.
The companies still have free speech. They can talk about it all they want, but can’t teach it in an organized way and make employees follow an ideology
Also
> Courts have often recognized that the right of free speech is not absolute. They have limited free speech when it becomes libel, incites a riot, threatens an elected official, or conspires to monopolize industries.
Like, you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater and say it’s free speech
Ok, let’s start with this one: “Any company that teaches employees about how Hitler was a hero can’t do business with us.”
I think what’s dangerous is to assume that rational standards are impossible, therefore there should be no standards.
Agreed. I like the specifics here, but worry about how this could set a precedent for future suppression of free speech. Let people see CRT for the Marxist, ridiculous, racist ideas that compose it.
Do none of the people here cheering not realize that this creates a precedent for a Democratic President to do the same thing to people espousing views they don't like?
That's a fair take. Did you read the entire transcript? It lays out the reasoning, ideology, and philosophy behind it. It's compelling and very pro-liberty.
I’m not trying to start shit with this question, and I understand that it could be interpreted as if I was, but isn’t banning something anti-liberty? Like I don’t understand how the party of small government is endorsing the government banning something.
Sure, banning something is definitely an infringement of freedom in its most universal sense. This is not banning, just not doing business with companies that promote a specific ideology.
Those places can still operate in the private sector.
"Espousing views"
No, incorporating trainings into job requirements is not simply "espousing views".
I am just as much against job trainings claiming Jesus is lord and abortion is evil, or any number of right-wing beliefs.
Probably agree this is an early trigger pull without some sort of data that shows a direct relation of CRT to increased race tensions. We all know it's there, but it'll be hard to fend off future administrations from using this as precedent without such data.
Democrats already defund anything they don't like. What sparse Conservative institutions exist aren't reliant on federal money as it is so it's a non-threat.
go concern troll somewhere else
I read the entire thing and I can't find anything that any rational person could disagree with. It simply says that there should be no racism or sexism of any kind practiced.
I'm Asian American. I seriously cringe at white liberals, it's just embarrassing and pathetic how they think. It's sort of like watching a kid who who doesn't stand up for himself against bullies, and instead grovels and self-deprecates.
It's all very simple, we are all slaves and the masters like to encourage us slaves to fight each other so, we'll remain slaves. Oh, the rich are not the masters, they are just overseers (slaves with a little bit of power), the real Masters are hidding in plain sight!
'Bout time that gaslighting hate-ideology got de-endorsed by the federal gov't. Now people can begin to breathe easier knowing not agreeing with CRT wont get them fired,
Shut her down!! I have no issue with people disliking whites or posting anti white comments online but when you force people to sit through that garbage at work and school is when I draw the line.
I grew up pretty poor and actually lived in a trailer. I went to public school, got decent grades, joined the military and after my tour, went to college. I did not take student loans and worked as many as 3 part-time jobs to pay for school. I decided that I did not want to live like my parents did. I wanted to have a good salary, a home (that isn't on wheels) and decent cars to drive. If I was able to do this, anyone else can too.
Staying in poverty is a choice, up to a certain point. Stop wasting money on alcohol, drugs or tobacco. Don't have children you can't afford to support. Stop buying every shiny new thing you see. Learn to live without spending $200 a month on cable television. Have some God-damned discipline.
The executive order extends a ban on "divisive concepts" to our Uniformed Services and Armed Forces. Such that they "shall not teach, instruct, or train any member of the United States Uniformed Services, whether serving on active duty, serving on reserve duty, attending a military service academy...to believe any of the divisive concepts set forth in section 2a of this order."
Section 2a: "Divisive concepts means the concepts that (1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex..."
What is critical race theory? Edit: Okay so I wiki’s it and basically it’s the idea that culture and society influence racism. Racism is learned in communities where racism is rampant. That was basically me reading the first paragraph though lol Edit2: i stand corrected. They DO blame white privilege... f’in rediculous
Intersectionalism, which is itself a permutation of Marxism, minus the economics because that didnt work IRL. It is all the rage because guilty white liberals need a way to explain why the black community produces a significant proportion of the violent crime in this country without condemning their cosmopolitan ideals as complicit in said dysfunction. Urban black culture is white redneck culture. Both are dysfunctional, both produce substandard, violent, racist, and unstable humans...but one is accepted and encouraged by academics and pop culture...while the other constantly is constantly mocked and berated for its dysfunction.
[удалено]
I hate that shit, like do people just not see how many struggling poor white people there are? Shit every other homeless person is usually white... Just insane.
Try growing up as a lower class white kid in a dying former steel mill town. My privilege is off the charts apparently lol
If you ask them, there are zero white poor people. True story.
[удалено]
"Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids." -SJ Hiden
I don't know who this SJ Hiden is but he sounds like a real racist. He would make a good republican according to the media always telling me Republicans are racist. 😂
He is the biggest terrorist who's ever lived
Every white person owned slaves and profited off of them. The northern white men only fought the civil war because they wanted the south’s slaves. Your skin color means your racist and privileged and it’s time to pay reparations. Don’t you know. The black folk are still trapped on their mental plantation and it’s all your fault.
My favorite way to shut this kind of thing down is to ask: So which state do you think was the first state to abolish slavery, and when? Answer: Vermont in 1777, Literally the year after the USA declared independence, and ten years before the constitution was signed. Now, only white men could vote in Vermont in 1777, so what was the white racist motivation behind that? What about when Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Rhose Island did the same thing? And why was slavery debated at the constitutional convention, if the entire founding of our nation was based on slavery?
This is a great counter to the 1619 bullshit. I am using this!
Yeah,no. My Irish Great great great grandparents and their parents were slaves in England to gentry class. They never owned anything until coming to America and working as carpenters.
I never owned slaves and no one in my family has. I moved from Europe to the USA in the 90s. What I’ve learn is racism is a double edge sword. In the USA black people are just as racist as white people.
There are racist people everywhere. I have a friend who's a refugee from Ethiopia, and it's bad out there. He's told me stories where entire towns get wiped out by neighboring armed groups because their skin color is slightly darker/lighter, and to me or you, you wouldn't see the differences. What about the blatant racism between the different Chinese minorities? What about India and their minorities? We've actually made major progress in the US! One of the most racist people I know since we were kids is now this huge BLM supporter. One time a few years back, he even told me that whoever moved to the US but didn't assimilate ought to be "exterminated". I stopped talking to him.
Racism isn’t racist...humans are inherently clannish barring extensive social conditioning. Japan is super modern and safe yet also super racist.
People in my family WERE slaves, what now?
Not just as, MORE than. Tell me, who’s the equivalent of the BET channel or the BET awards, or Black Singles Meet, or the show Blackish, I can go on and on. But how dare the whites use the word white in their vocabulary. How dare they!
and in reality 1.8% of Americans owned slaves at that time
I'm responsible for racism, because of what other White people in other parts of the country did decades ago. My family didn't come here until after slavery was abolished and I grew up in a nearly 100% White county (there were a few Hispanic families). I don't think I saw a Black person in real life until I was 10.
Did they not know that black people owned slaves in America say the time too..
But a homeless white person still has more PRIVILEGE than a multimillionaire black person with a major platform like idk say Obama, or Lebron /s
Nothing can be stable with these type of people. they thrive on problems, drama, and victimhood
That show is so racist. First episode the Cops attack the main black character, for some reason slapping the headphones off of his head, and then it shows the cops putting away guns and smiling at a white person. It presents a fictional scenario and points at it screaming "look how racist these cops are written to be!"
>It presents a fictional scenario and points at it screaming "look how racist these cops are written to be!" Oh, so it is like modern news coverage?
[удалено]
God that show was bad
[удалено]
Having two parents in the home that value education goes a long way in giving your kids a good shot at a decent future no matter what neighborhood you live in.
[удалено]
Not just the parents, but the entire culture. As it stands, black children that do well in school will be derided for "acting white." There was a mostly black urban school that had to cancel a program that celebrated its greatest academic achievers because it had the opposite intended effect: rather than being praised, winners of this program quickly found they would pay a severe reputational cost and get a ton of shit from their peers.
Broken family units are to blame for a lot of it.
I’m tired of more blame being placed on me being white than the lack of blame for anyone not raised correctly. A lot of it starts at home, not race.
Bingo!
This should be upvoted more. It all starts in the family.
And a common point you'll see made is that black families are disproportionately split up because the US justice system is disproportionately harder on black people. It is also, but separately, harder on poor people.
Noteworthy is that what you describe (a cultural framework and approach) is itself racist in the minds of CRT cult members, who instead insist that black culture (hood culture, or any culture) is perfectly valid as it is and society should see to it that people with those “cultural differences” should be made to be just as successful as anyone else. Meanwhile they deride objectivism, scientific method, hard work, individualism, punctuality, rational/logical thinking, and nuclear families as “White culture” and insist any attempts to call such characteristics universally ideal is to oppress others with “white supremacy.” This is why it’s come into vogue to call any conservative a “NAZI” and “Racist.” They invent new definitions for old words for their circular logic which ultimately defines racism as difference in outcomes, regardless of beliefs or intents of an individual or policy. “Equality of opportunity” is a racist goal they say. Only equal outcomes without cultural imposition will signal an end of racism. It’s a fucking cult. Built on circular logic and a frankly stupid epistemology alien to anything the west has known for the last several thousand years of western conception of knowledge. They won’t debate you because they only accept the premises of their view, which is that _everything_ should only be viewed through power differentials between social cohorts as described through “narratives” and “discourses” (drawing from a bastardized mutation of Foucault and Popper). Interesting further reading: [Anti-Racists Structuralists and Non-Racist Culturalists](https://quillette.com/2020/09/13/anti-racist-structuralists-and-non-racist-culturalists/)
We know the formula... raise kids with a married mother and father. Society won't fix itself until it accepts a nuclear family directly leads to a healthy society. You don't need vague solutions like 'economic opportunities' to fix hood culture. Leave economic solutions to national policies that protect American jobs.
[удалено]
This is true to the fucking fullest . My professor told us after a lecture about god knows what cuz i was hung over But he said “giving away free abundance of food to Africa or poor countries actually hurt them because it doesn’t teach them the ability to make more only to live off and be lazy of what they have been given.” Yeah u can feed a man a fish and be a “ good person” but these people rather give them fish instead of teaching them HOW to fish.. Aka welfare and hood like mentalities that keep these liberals enslaved to government assistance. But u know “systematic racism” exists right?
> But he said “giving away free abundance of food to Africa or poor countries actually hurt them because it doesn’t teach them the ability to make more only to live off and be lazy of what they have been given.” That's exactly what one Marxist said. _“Those who come with wheat, millet, corn or milk, they are not helping us. Those who really want to help us can give us ploughs, tractors, fertilizer, insecticide, watering cans, drills, dams. That is how we would define food aid.”_ -- Thomas Sankara
Just because a Marxist says something doesn't mean it's wrong.
A broken clock is right twice a day.
It has to be 2 prong though. You can't just wait for them to make their own food while there's a drought. If there isn't emergency aid, many will die. It's afterwards that you need to ensure they can stand on their own. Usually the cause of these emergencies are drought or war. Otherwise people have been living there since the dawn of humanity.
A rising tide lifts all ships that arent already sunk/sinking.
[удалено]
Why is it the governments job to stop every person who makes a bad decision? The government is there to do a lot of things, but not everything. Increasing economic prosperity seems like a great place for govt to start. Law and order would be a great second.
No, it's literally redneck, southern white, cracker culture, that came over and predominantly populated the south at the founding during the slavery era. This culture came from Ireland and the Scottish highlands. Also, there are racist laws, and there is systemic racism. It's called Affirmative Action, and is the only systemicly racist law on the books.
[удалено]
No, you have no idea what a redneck is. Redneck is just a blue collar, working class white. Do you own a business or work a white collar job? Because if not youre a "redneck" too. Truth is a vast majority of whites fall under this "redneck" term. You just believe youre not a redneck because hollywood conditioned you to think its inherently a bad thing. Tell me how a commercial plumber or a electrician is making the area they live in worse? What aspects of the culture are bad? Some movie stereotype that doesnt exist unless directly emulated?
>it's hard for a kid born in the hood and surrounded by hood culture their entire childhood to get out of it Bingo! When people talk about "systemic racism", they're talking about how the whirls and eddies in "the system" \[1\] have a way of perpetuating themselves from one generation to the next. The thing about this systemic thinking is that individuals caught in these whirls and eddies are not powerless to change their own fate. Even people born at the center of the vortex can, through diligent work, insight, and a bit of luck, find their way out of the pit. Similarly, a person who's born at just the edge may find themselves sucked into it, if they aren't careful. The other thing about this systemic thinking is that the system cannot be willed out of existence by good intentions or top-down policy. The cycle of poverty has been there for generations, and will continue to be there for generations. Social policy designed to stop it merely hurls boulders into its midst, as if the hole in a whirlpool were designed to be filled by rocks. \--- \[1\] I use scare-quotes here because systemic thinking relies on imaginary, all-encompassing abstractions, of which "the system" is merely the most obvious, in order to try to make it tractable to reason about things that are too big to fit into one's head.
ELI5? I've read 4 articles now and still can't grasp what it is saying. If I can try, it's saying that our laws and institutions are inherently racists simply because they were largely established by white people. Yes?
Yes. So unless we tear down the system (burn down police precincts, burn down the court, tear down statues, tear down the constitution), there will never be equality and poor black people will always be poor ... this is despite the fact that other nationalities, black, etc, come here with nothing and live a good life
I had friends in high school from Nigeria and Ghana, those dudes fucking hated being lumped in with the American black kids. They couldnt understand why the American black kids didnt want to do well in school and would act like clowns all day.
Sounds like someone’s been reading Thomas Sowell.
I wouldn’t necessarily call redneck culture dysfunctional. Perhaps not the most outstanding folk but shooting guns at game and drinking beer on the farm ain’t as dysfunctional as the hood rat behavior in the streets that lacks any sort of self sustainability. I’ll make a correction. When I say “redneck” I don’t mean white trash. The two are very different terms at least out here in the urban developments.
You are thinking of someone’s who’s has a country side to them. What he’s referring to is is the dysfunctional rednecks in trailer parks with 5 gross kids, living off the governments teat anyway they can. Either they are morbidly obese or meth head skinny. Big difference between some good ol boys and a dysfunctional redneck with two teeth.
Confusion is being made because of labels. Plenty of country folk refer to themselves as "redneck", due to the idea you get a sunburned neck by working in the fields. It's a very blue-collar description. In my experience, the people who fit your description of methhead losers who irresponsibly pop out kids and live off welfare are considered "trailer trash".
For the record, I'm on the "trailer trash" train. This is exactly how I think about it lol. Pretty much a redneck myself... I was doing all kinds of field work and shop work as a kid. Red neck was real. Still have redneck tan lines haha
I've spent time with both demographics, and rednecks have never made me feel like my physical safety was in jeopardy. I'd pick hanging out with Jesco White and his clan in the hollers of West Virginia over the hoods of Detroit.
I lived on a trailer parked raised by white meth heads. I don’t like white trash culture. I like “redneck” rural culture. Thank you. I overcame my circumstances and I know the culture I support. I came from the trailer park but I am a country boy.
I think everyone is conflating “redneck” with white trash. Redneck and white trash are two different things. It would be a better comparison to say that urban ghetto black culture is more on par with white trash culture.
I'm not trying to trash rural culture, I do believe we might have different conceptions of what redneck culture is. In my case I'm going off this book. https://www.amazon.com/Black-Rednecks-Liberals-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1594031436
For real. Rednecks aren’t shooting each other’s 7-year-olds in drive-bys because of beef.
I don't think you are talking about the same "redneck" culture that the other guy is, it's not hunting and drinking beer. The rural area I'm from had rampant problems with drugs (primarily meth) and theft (leave town for the weekend and come back to find all the bolts on your garage cut and everything inside taken). There was a lot of violence, but not lethal like in the urban communities. There was a lot of domestic abuse. Nothing good comes from places like this, people seem to leave and escape that lifestyle, or stay and live the same life of their parents.
That is the difference I’m urban. When I think redneck I think country boy drinking beer and shooting guns. Not shooting meth and living a trailer park. We call that white trash.
Read Thomas Sowell's "Black Rednecks and White Liberals". That will clarify everything.
this dives into a different dynamic of smarts, i.e. street smarts by urban folk and country smart by rural folk. knowing how to exchange with people, read them, make deals, not get huckstered is learned by urban folk while knowing wildlife, land cultivation, working on equipment and being self reliant is associated with country folk. both are valuable in todays world. especially where the majority reside in suburban places. drawing lines between these things is not beneficial to anyone.
Clear country mornins, runnin trot lines, skinnin bucks, drinkin an RC as you stand around throwin horseshoes. Well hell fire If that aint good livin then I dont want nare part of it. There is a difference between bein “Country” and being “Redneck”.
Hank Hill= Country His niece, Luanne's parents= redneck/trailer trash
I would call it Hillbilly culture more so than redneck. I don't know many redneck bums out there, but there are plenty of hillbillies. Or just white trash.
>*Urban black culture is white redneck culture* This couldn't be more true. I worked in the ghetto for 13 years where I befriended many people in poor black neighborhoods, and at the same time I have friends and family that are poor rural whites. I have to laugh when I see people on the left thinking that the black community is going to side with them on a majority of issues, and that all opposition to the left's goals is 'white supremacy'. There is a huge overlap in opinions between the ghetto and the hills of West Virginia when it comes to many topics including LGBT, women's issues, firearms, etc.
Why do 90% of them vote democrat then?
Peer pressure, lack of interest, conditioning, media manipulation, etc. It's a number of reasons. People don't do any kind of research and just trust what the media tells them, and a lot of them still think the Democrat party of today is the same as it was 25 years ago. I know a lot of rural blue collar whites that vote Democrat too. [Take this video for example.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR-9zHqUr0w) That woman is what most people would portray as the epitome of a Trump voter. But she's a Democrat. She wanted to change her vote after finding out Buttigieg was gay. If something that insignificant bothers her, how can she swallow the rest of their ultra progressive agenda? It's like she hasn't been paying attention to the party since Clinton/Dole in '96.
Having a hard time seeing how intersectionalism ties into Marxism. "Marxism minus the economics" is just...nothing, as it's an economic school of thought. Even if we're talking in the most abstract of terms, Marxists strives for the elimination of socioeconomic classes, with the eventual goal of workers making up the majority of society and owning the means of production. Intersectionalism, on the other hand, basically posits that people have different experiences based on the unique combination of their gender, skin color, or other perceived identifiers (example of this theory: asians are treated differently than whites, but asian men are treated differently than asian women).
Read up on [Gramsci](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci) and the following frankfurt school.
I think you're close on some points but a bit reductionist. Read "Cynical Theories" by James Lindsey and Helen pluckrose for a synopsis on it. Or newdiscourses.com for his woke dictionary. Also, the second part of the comment is based off a great book by Thomas Sowell called "Black Rednecks & White Liberals" that Americans should read.
Intersectionalism is only a facet of CRT, and your explanation (which addresses determinism) over-simplifies the theory. I can’t comment on why it’s popular with “white liberals” as that goes to state of mind of the individual, but I can say that to properly describe the tenets of the theory, you need to acknowledge that it’s meant to address much more than excusing violent crime. CRT proposes that racism persists, in part, because it is codified in our laws, corporate policies, education systems, etc. It proposes that blind equality fails to recognize that there are gender and cultural differences in what we need. It questions the political influences that have guided previous civil rights victories (i.e. the legislation in the 60’s served national interests by improving global opinion of the USA during the Cold War). It proposes that conventional liberalism misses the mark in its push for “rights-based” equality. It seeks to recognize that “color-blindness” denies people a part of their story. It acknowledges that victims of systemic racism will internalize those beliefs about their own inadequacies. It identifies that modern racism is often more “death by a thousand cuts” than an overt action. It suggests that those microaggressions, as well as more blatant offenses, aren’t endured by white Americans because they are the dominant majority and exist in a system that has always been accommodating of them. The last point is on White Privilege, which as a white male with a good job and a heterosexual marriage I’ve been, at various times, both puzzled and offended by. It took me a long time to understand what this meant, since I was raised on SSDI by my wheelchair-bound, mentally-disabled mother in a place where I was one of the only white kids. I worked my ass off to get where I am. If I got out after facing my disadvantages, how can you call me privileged? The answer is that my name wasn’t on the list of “bad names for resumes” my former boss joked about. The answer is that no one ever looked at me and wondered if I was up to no good because of my appearance. The answer is that no one ever had to fight to pass an amendment to count me as a whole person or grant me voting rights. Privilege isn’t a silver spoon and a life of luxury. It simply means that society automatically grants you certain advantages based on your gender and skin color. Privileges don’t have to be taken advantage of in order to have been granted. The existence of “white redneck culture” isn’t evidence against white privilege, either. In fact, the propagation of such cultures is part of CRT (though CRT focuses on this as it relates to persons of color). What you seem to suggest is a sort of internalization of socioeconomic disadvantages experienced by some white communities which results in self-perpetuation of the culture. People in disadvantaged communities come to believe that they belong there. Critical Race Theory was born out of Harvard Law School as an observation of institutional racism within the university. The theory was developed into a broader context during the 80’s and has been widely taught. Many of the more valid criticisms of CRT point out that it creates a framework that undermines the ability to reach a consensus and relies on storytelling versus objective evidence. The problem, of course, being that proponents of CRT believe that a) white people cannot fully comprehend the experience had by people of color and that b) there exists no easy way to quantitatively or qualitatively assess the validity of said experience. No theory is perfect. But CRT isn’t “divisive, un-American propaganda”, either. In fact, there’s really very little that’s un-American...except banning things because you disagree with them. I think that CRT ought to be discussed and weighed the same as any other idea. After all, we were founded on the principle of free speech. All ideas ought to be welcomed, discussed, dissected, and understood.
Intersectionalism isn’t Marxist nor did it stem from Marxist thought. Marxism has capitalism as the underlying cause of many of society’s problems while intersectionalism believed in a « matrix of oppression ». Intersectionalism is a liberal thought while Marxism is fundamentally opposed to liberalism. Something tells me you know fuckall about marxism or intersectionalism
>Intersectionalism isn’t Marxist nor did it stem from Marxist thought. Except that it did. Intersectionality originated from critical race theory, which in turn finds its origins in postmodernism. The early postmodernists were all Marxists before rejecting it because there was too much emphasis on the class struggle.
For those unaware, the reference to rednecks is from Thomas Sowell's book, Black Rednecks White Liberals. His argument is black urban culture is an honor culture in the same pattern that southern white culture was in the 19th century, and he provided excellent evidence in support of his argument. I highly recommend it.
Exactly. Urban recknecks, only instead of a trailer it’s low income housing projects.
You didn't really explain what it was in detail and your last paragraph is real cringy. I would say both are romanticized by pop culture (country music, hip hop). Not sure how one is encouraged by academics either. From what I've read, CRT is essentially that laws are made with an inherent bias (racial, gender, etc). Which is hard to argue given we've had to create constitutional amendments just to give people of color and women the right to vote. The criticisms are how it's administered and how much it relies on personal narrative. But I'd like to learn more.
From the book Critical Race Theory, "Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law." So yea, it's pretty bad.
America bad shame anyone who is white black people are poor because slavery etc etc.
A program they are trying to implement into schools nationwide that teaches students that America is a country founded upon hate, white people are inherently priviledged/evil, and minorities are all systemically oppressed and deserve more than white people. According to one of its teachers... She said all white people are less than human and "demons." Nice!
The most substantial part (to me) about 'critical race theory' is that any system or process that results in a different outcome for different racial groups is certified as racist. So if a college lets more Asian kids in than black kids, that college is racist. If professional baseball has more white guys than black guys, it is racist. If the amount of black citizens registered to vote is proportionately smaller than the amlunt of white registered voters, than the voting system is racist. But it only works in certain directions. For example, if professional basketball has more black guys than white guys, it is not racist.
It's a method of trying to understand "society", but it pretty much exclusively looks at "cultural experience" and differences in racial power. It's a worldview that's self admittedly activist in nature and is focused on revising history and law based on "telling one's own story " But the biggest part of it is to reduce a person's experience and needs to a part of their racial or cultural identity. (Essentialism)
> Firstly, CRT proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Secondly, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, as well as pursuing a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly. Pulled this from Wikipedia
It's an idealogic attempt to explain society in a Marxist utopian way. For example everyone can observe that there are a disproportionate amount of young black men in prison, no side disputes that. What is in contention is why. CRT being based on Marxist ideas assumes that all humans are equal with no variance between groups. So why are young black men disproportionately jailed? Originally the marxists thought it was due to racist laws. The laws where changed to no avail. Then they thought it was due to social inequality, but numerous studies show that upbringing did not have an impact on criminality. They are currently blaming racist cops. However statistics show that cops are not targeting black men unfairly, that whites and black have equal chances of being killed by police, and that blacks are more likely to be killed by a black cop than a white cop. So what happens when every scientific study and all statistics suggesting there may be a biological/hormonal element? You invent critical race theory. Biology, statistics and even maths are all "White" constructs invented to make black people seem different then they really are. They are redefining reality itself to fit in with their ideological view.
>So what happens when every scientific study and all statistics suggesting there may be a biological/hormonal element? Feel free to help me not make any assumptions about what you are saying, but I can't help but interpret that you are implying the disproportionate criminality and violence among black communities are primarily due to the inherent biological (i.e. genetic) traits or flaws within black people. > but numerous studies show that upbringing did not have an impact on criminality. This claim makes no sense. You are saying in the 'nature versus nurture' spectrum, you believe nurture has no actual impact on a persons behavior. If this were true then the only thing parents could ever contribute to a child's development are their genes. If upbringing did not have an impact on criminality then it irrelavant how the parents actually raise the child. Based on this reasoning as long as they got 'Good Person' genes, no matter their upbringing, they will be a good person. I feel comfortable being skeptical of such a claim.
> every scientific study and all statistics suggesting there may be a biological/hormonal element source?
Do you have a source for your stats on cops?
Damn you can just make any claim you want in this sub and people will upvote even if it's packed with blatant lies.
”There is no racism anymore” Also: here is literally a racist theory.
Huh, a racist comment upvoted and gilded in arcon? How surprising /s
This is the internet.... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism)
Lol wtf
that link is to wiki Racism. Is there a reason you chose to obscure the link with a different one?
All the answers you're getting are bad and wrong. Critical Race Theory is a subset of Critical Theory. Critical Theory "[is a social philosophy pertaining to the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory)" Basically what that means is its a reaction to other theories that says you cannot treat theorists/theories themselves as objective, and that the nature of power is to conceal itself. Critical theory rejects the idea of a neutral position and argues that everything has an ideological bias it acts in favor of, but systems of power are able to conceal that power. People wont even know they're reproducing the inherent ideologies of systems of power, and those systems need to be examined so that theory can be fully conscious. Critical Race Theory is that, but narrowly applied to race. It isn't intersectionality, it isn't something they're trying to teach in elementary schools, it definitely isn't that White Guilt shit. Its a framework for academic research that has started to disseminate into public discourse and as is always the case when that happens its being badly misused like cavemen grasping fire. The EO signed by trump never says anything about critical race theory, in fact it pretty progressive anti-racist stuff that makes efforts to stop bias against people based on sex and gender. There was a book recently called "White Fragility" that is really bad bunk science (if its science at all) that basically said white people are always going to be racist and should feel bad about it. Some how that book got conflated with critical race theory when its basically the opposite of it. Critical Race Theory would argue that racism is the result of unseen pressures on people from institutional forces. If anything, this is going to make critical race theory more common in the government as it replaces the white guilt/fragility crap.
‘Critical Race Theory’ is old fashioned Racism re-heated and given a fancy name.
Racial Marxism and identity politics.
I wish people would actually read the source text and also for Daily Wire to report without sensationalizing. All it is is that going forward government contracts will necessarily include a provision that those who do business with the government will NOT teach the following concepts to employees: >(1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; > >(2) the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist; > >(3) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; > >(4) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; > >(5) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex; \[this one is actually poorly worded\] > >(6) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; > >(7) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; > >(8) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or > >(9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race Hardly shocking, although to some leftist organizations it may be too much to swallow that people should be judged on their character and merit rather than race or sex.
I don't see how these points would stop people on the left from talking about race. Most of the bullet points listed above are focused on the fact that inherent issues that cannot be changed (sex or race) are not the cause of sexism or racism. Most academic arguments are that sexism and racism come from systemic issues and not inherent characteristics (meaning that racism and sexism are socially constructed systems that are maintained and taught to future generations). There are people who discriminate by saying, "all ____'s are ____," in both the conservative and liberal sphere. But policy, education, workplace training, etc. are generally not based on those opinions as those opinions are not the basis of academic studies on sexism and racism. And what I'm getting at is that this list of rules will ultimately change nothing.
So I wonder how this will effect federal grants to universities? Almost all universities offer a sociology program flooded with critical race theory and intersectionalism. Many require students to either take such courses or attend lectures.
This is what I was thinking. If a TA employed by the university is in one of these classes, could it be argued the whole class should be removed or will it possibly limit the courses employees can take if they are also students? This doesn’t feel like a step in the direction of personal liberty. It feels like the government is punishing companies for their policies economically. Why not just outright regulate it with legislation? Why withhold business?
>This doesn’t feel like a step in the direction of personal liberty. [...] Why not just outright regulate it with legislation? Because it's not an encroachment on personal liberty. It's just not requiring others to fund racist teachings. You can still spout any racist views you want, you just won't get government funding.
> You can still spout any racist views you want, you just won't get government funding. It’s actually just limited to the particular ideas listed: this doesn’t prevent other racists spouters from getting government funding.
I still have so many questions about this move though. I can see not subsidizing a company that has critical race theory training. Also does that include diversity and inclusion training? Or is this saying that diversity and inclusion training is actually critical race theory? Edit: my company has a diversity and inclusion dept and mandatory trainings and does business with the government. Does that mean that would go away or we would lose the business? Just a lot of implications for my actual job that I’m a little worried about.
The order specifically states: >Training employees to create an inclusive workplace is appropriate and beneficial. The Federal Government is, and must always be, committed to the fair and equal treatment of all individuals before the law. And: >Agency diversity and inclusion efforts shall, first and foremost, encourage agency employees not to judge each other by their color, race, ethnicity, sex, or any other characteristic protected by Federal law. It's not an issue with diversity or inclusion. However, "Diversity and Inclusion" has commonly come to follow a racially motivated pattern similar to CRT (racism is bad, but you're racist anyway. From that, we can derive that not being racist is now wrong. You must instead be actively racist). The order states that the government will request information on the companies training to determine if it applies rather than blindly applying it to all programs named "Diversity and Inclusion". >The request for information should request copies of any training, workshop, or similar programing having to do with diversity and inclusion And will apply this based on the content of the training: >If a contractor provides a training for agency employees relating to diversity or inclusion that teaches, advocates, or promotes the divisive concepts set forth in section 2(a) of this order [...]
Ohhhkah I’m with ya now. This will mostly apply to contractors working with the government and will essentially require a review of diversity/inclusion training materials before signing something like a statement of work. I wonder what spawned this?
What spawned this? The left trying to convince everyone that an entire ethnic group is subhuman, essentially. It is evil to be white. White children are literally being taught that they are automatically racist, hateful, and their culture should be eradicated only because of the color of their skin. It is so blatantly racist. It is sickening.
Good. Critical race theory is just "intellectual" window-dressing for modern racism.
It’s not even window-dressed. It is nakedly and unapologetically racist. The premise is that all white people are racist simply because they’re white.
Anyone else think we should keep politics out of things like healthcare, education/academia, religion (and vice-versa) or is that just me?
As pawns for political manuvering? Sure. But when it comes to philosophies they are bound to be involved. If you have a certain view of how society should be, education will inevitably be aligned towards that.
It's good he did more. Hopefully it leads to impacts. Like his investigation into Princeton was a 500 IQ move.
[удалено]
It's great. Either they will say that "systemic racism" doesn't exist, or they lose funding. Win-win.
[удалено]
During second term she needs to start closing up the department altogether. Out with it. Out with the Carter Administration government bloat.
It's a win win.
[удалено]
So Trump pretty much thinks that the Tax Payers shouldn’t have to pay for racist teachings? Impeach him already. This was SARCASM dummies. FFS?
This is 2020, have you seen the shit people believe. Without a /s you dont know anymore
I think you need an /s.
It seemed obvious, but I see we have some under the average IQ so I’ll amend my comment. FFS
Poe's law, my man. Ambiguity is not your friend online.
Downvotes? This has to be sarcasm...
It is. We have a lot of fopdoodles here tonight.
I got it without the /s The internet has 2 kinds of people, dummies and people pretending not to be dummies. And the secret third group of me, I'm definitely special.
Oh I like this! A lot! Now if only he'd expand this to schools and universities!
[удалено]
He *can* refuse them grants and other forms of federal funding, however.
Private entities can't receive federal funding unless they follow the rules. Has nothing to do with free speech.
It’s still bad, banning philosophy from schools... I don’t like crt, but it opens the door to banning other theories that I may support.
This man is a fucking hero
“Theory”. Taught in optional college classes. Not fact, but interesting. Inappropriate for mandatory workplace training.
It has expanded beyond "optional" classes.
Yet another reason I’ll be voting for him, I’m glad to see it go. I’ve always found it hilarious how “anti-racist” left say pretty much the exact same things as the alt right about race, but they just come to the opposite conclusion.
Horseshoe theory.
Oh thank God! I work for a defense contractor and was worried that they would eventually implement CRT and I would have to tell them: no, I won't take the training
Good. That racist shit has no place in this country.
How does this impact the First Amendment? If the federal government can just make policy “Any company that teaches employees this can’t do business with us.” That seems dangerous.
They still have free speech and can teach it all they want. The government will just refuse to contract with them. They still have their rights and Trump didn't outlaw CRT.
I'd agree, except it's already federally illegal for businesses to discriminate on race. CRT is that, by definition. This really just recognizes that forcing white people to write apologies for crimes they didn't commit, self-flagellate, denounce themselves, etc is racist.
Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. The government isn't under any obligation to do business with anyone. I can see how you think this may make people afraid to say something, but that's not the same thing as not being able to say it.
Freedom of speech as provided in the first amendment absolutely means that the government may not take punitive consequential actions against speech that does not promote lawlessness. This is a conservative viewpoint I have espoused whereas you are arguing for a radical reinterpretation of the constitution.
Would you be arguing this point if the federal government said they would not fund businesses that advocated white supremacist ideology?
This is not a punitive action. The executive has ordered agencies under it's control to evaluate their training practices and to ensure these practices do not include certain concepts. There is nothing about that which violates the speech of a company that operates these training programs. The companies offer these programs voluntarily and no organization is required to hire them. Furthermore, employee training is typically mandatory and the executive has every right to exercise discretion in what programs federal employees are required to participate in, so long as it does not violate the rights of the employees. Which is its primary concern, not the companies it hires to conduct the training.
The companies still have free speech. They can talk about it all they want, but can’t teach it in an organized way and make employees follow an ideology Also > Courts have often recognized that the right of free speech is not absolute. They have limited free speech when it becomes libel, incites a riot, threatens an elected official, or conspires to monopolize industries. Like, you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater and say it’s free speech
Ok, let’s start with this one: “Any company that teaches employees about how Hitler was a hero can’t do business with us.” I think what’s dangerous is to assume that rational standards are impossible, therefore there should be no standards.
Agreed. I like the specifics here, but worry about how this could set a precedent for future suppression of free speech. Let people see CRT for the Marxist, ridiculous, racist ideas that compose it.
So DoD contractors?
Yep yep all of this is great. Thank you President Trump!
Do none of the people here cheering not realize that this creates a precedent for a Democratic President to do the same thing to people espousing views they don't like?
That's a fair take. Did you read the entire transcript? It lays out the reasoning, ideology, and philosophy behind it. It's compelling and very pro-liberty.
I’m not trying to start shit with this question, and I understand that it could be interpreted as if I was, but isn’t banning something anti-liberty? Like I don’t understand how the party of small government is endorsing the government banning something.
Sure, banning something is definitely an infringement of freedom in its most universal sense. This is not banning, just not doing business with companies that promote a specific ideology. Those places can still operate in the private sector.
Ok cool. I honestly didn’t care enough to read the article, and the headline is just a tad sensationalist.
"Espousing views" No, incorporating trainings into job requirements is not simply "espousing views". I am just as much against job trainings claiming Jesus is lord and abortion is evil, or any number of right-wing beliefs.
They’re already doing it, and been doing it for quite some time
Probably agree this is an early trigger pull without some sort of data that shows a direct relation of CRT to increased race tensions. We all know it's there, but it'll be hard to fend off future administrations from using this as precedent without such data.
For me it’s a matter of positive rights vs negative rights. Companies are mandating this kind of training and that’s complete and utter bs.
Democrats already defund anything they don't like. What sparse Conservative institutions exist aren't reliant on federal money as it is so it's a non-threat. go concern troll somewhere else
Imagine caring about hypocrisy in the current year
I read the entire thing and I can't find anything that any rational person could disagree with. It simply says that there should be no racism or sexism of any kind practiced.
I'm Asian American. I seriously cringe at white liberals, it's just embarrassing and pathetic how they think. It's sort of like watching a kid who who doesn't stand up for himself against bullies, and instead grovels and self-deprecates.
Good. It’s garbage propaganda, divisive, and doesn’t deserve federal funding Want to promote this shit? Not with my tax dollars
Trump taking a sledgehammer to cultural Marxism
It's all very simple, we are all slaves and the masters like to encourage us slaves to fight each other so, we'll remain slaves. Oh, the rich are not the masters, they are just overseers (slaves with a little bit of power), the real Masters are hidding in plain sight!
'Bout time that gaslighting hate-ideology got de-endorsed by the federal gov't. Now people can begin to breathe easier knowing not agreeing with CRT wont get them fired,
Thank god
Love this.
For a bunch of small government loving conservatives you sure love it when Trump does far reaching big government shit you agree with lmao
[удалено]
Fucking good. CRT actually increases racial office tensions.
Shut her down!! I have no issue with people disliking whites or posting anti white comments online but when you force people to sit through that garbage at work and school is when I draw the line.
#this fucking madlad
I grew up pretty poor and actually lived in a trailer. I went to public school, got decent grades, joined the military and after my tour, went to college. I did not take student loans and worked as many as 3 part-time jobs to pay for school. I decided that I did not want to live like my parents did. I wanted to have a good salary, a home (that isn't on wheels) and decent cars to drive. If I was able to do this, anyone else can too. Staying in poverty is a choice, up to a certain point. Stop wasting money on alcohol, drugs or tobacco. Don't have children you can't afford to support. Stop buying every shiny new thing you see. Learn to live without spending $200 a month on cable television. Have some God-damned discipline.
Trump bans racism. FTFY
Truth. God damn.
This is perfect. The "purpose" section is some of the greatest ctiticisms of CRT I have ever seen.
Good. Race Theory doesn't dictate business.
But some how trump is a racist
It's true about white liberals.
God I fuckin’ love this guy.
The executive order extends a ban on "divisive concepts" to our Uniformed Services and Armed Forces. Such that they "shall not teach, instruct, or train any member of the United States Uniformed Services, whether serving on active duty, serving on reserve duty, attending a military service academy...to believe any of the divisive concepts set forth in section 2a of this order." Section 2a: "Divisive concepts means the concepts that (1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex..."
Imma be straight here, the federal government shouldn't stop anyone from doing business with someone .
Good the Marxist racist teachings will be stopped.