Is Critical Race Theory Racist?

[Red]

If you've been even remotely involved with US political discourse over the past year or so you've almost certainly have heard that phrase, and there's been a pretty big shitstorm around it.

Well first, one of the biggest issues when it comes to this debate is that no one as far as I can tell can really agree on what it really means. From what I've been told, it more or less affirmative action, but even more affirmative. I was gonna check out RationalWiki's article on it, until I remembered that when it comes to most political topics, RationalWiki has a great track record of not being rational (c'mon guys, if you claim to be rational, you have to at least attempt to be unbiased).
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

A very astute friend of mine pointed out a few contradictions in the article, namely:

Racism is "normal" in our society. Racist assumptions about minorities pervade our mind-set and are reinforced in the media and popular culture. Race is encoded not merely in our laws, but in our cultural symbols such as movies, clothes, language, and music. Our commonsense assumptions about people of color are biased-"we are all racists."

The article then goes on to explain what they think CRT is not:

"This mainly involves making people think that children are being taught to hate white people, and that they're all racist."

Nice job blatantly contradicting yourselves guys. I guess it's not the most ignorant article they've made though.

So since that isn't reliable, my best understanding of CRT basically is, since the world is "white dominated," we all view the world through a white lens, even though other views from other 'races' have equal merit.

To me that sounds a bit racist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg

Of course I'd be accused of speaking from this biased, racist lens of reality, but Western Civiliazation is the freest and most prosperous civilization in history; That isn't to say we shouldn't be multiculturalist and see the value in appreciating other cultures, but that doesn't mean every culture's views around the world have equal merit. Hell, if this were a thousand years ago in an age of profound scientific and philosophical ignorance, European culture wouldn't be that much ahead of African cultures. But we live in the age of modern medicine and technology, which has objectively brought the highest levels of freedom and living standards to the most amount of people, and as these Western values spread, it makes everyone else's quality of life better too.

It's an impediment to human flourishing to say that all cultures are 'different but equal' and shut off the opportunity to improve things because certain groups of people have different ideas of how things should be (which is also a huge issue with moral subjectivism).

Proponents of CRT also support the notion of different types of science depending on culture; For instance, they'll claim that all science, even from the world's most well funded and prestigious research facility has the same level of merit as alternative medical practices made up a thousand years ago because those cultures thought it was scientific. So the science of Newton and Darwin is "white science."

The "science must fall movement" is an effort to "decolonize" science, since it's been taken over by white people. It's "White science" and is the dominant field according to these people.

You know it's funny, since that's the same thing many Nazi scientists were doing in order to discredit Einstein's work, labeling it as "Jewish Physics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik
To any reasonable person this ought to bring up red flags. Anyone familiar with basic epistemology and the scientific method knows that the way we know science is due to these principles, not due to any cultural thing. Oh wait, that's wrong because that's a 'white' idea of philosophy, right?

So that's what we're dealing with here, any thoughts?

[Lay Vegan]

Rational Wiki hasn't provided any empirical evidence that supports point 1.

Our commonsense assumptions about people of color are biased-"we are all racists."

They also go on to contradict themselves later in the article as you point out. Much like intersectionalism, it seems a lot of CRT proponents are not very well read on the actual literature.

Point 2 looks like incoherent nonsense. I don't see any meaningful arguments to parse.

CRT posits an "interest-convergence theory" which holds that the dominant white culture can tolerate minority successes only when these successes also serve the larger interests of whites. Major civil rights advances occur rarely, and only in situations where whites stand to benefit as well. Every movement toward change is a struggle against the dominant white culture. People of color can only achieve limited success under the current system.

When do major civil rights advances (rooted in reason and evidence) fail to benefit whites and their communities? Whites do not benefit from police violence, urban poverty, youth being poisoned from heavy medal exposure, or food deserts. All of these issues have HUGE implications on the greater economy and health/wellbeing of the country as a whole. I don't see how ameliorating these issues wouldn't benefit everyone.

Unless you're a selfish racist. Wait..

CRT issues a "call to context" which rejects the formal perspective taken by white male scholars who subscribe to the "dominant narrative" of the law, whereby the law is seen as clear and neutral. CRT advocates a situated perspective which brings out the nuances of life as experienced by historically oppressed minorities. The dominant type of legal scholarship should be countered with techniques such as storytelling, science fiction, sarcasm, and parody.

Ok this actually sounds racist. The idea that people of color are uniquely qualified to reform the law, fix poverty, improve the school system etc. by virtue of their "experience" with these woes is both groundless and asinine. That's like saying people with mental disorders are uniquely qualified to treat their own illnesses instead of psychiatrists, who have undergone rigorous study and extensive training in the medical field. The idea that you more qualified by virtue of race is inherently racist.

CRT seems to have good intentions but ultimately it crumbles under even the most basic scrutiny.

[Red]

I would say you made a great post Lay, but even though you're black, you're still only viewing things from the perspective of a white society. Sorry, but you're wrong.

Rational Wiki hasn't provided any empirical evidence that supports point 1.

All the points in that box there come from someone named Kimberlé Crenshaw, the founder of this idea (and intersectionality).

Obviously RW is endorsing her position.

When do major civil rights advances (rooted in reason and evidence) fail to benefit whites and their communities? Whites do not benefit from police violence, urban poverty, youth being poisoned from heavy medal exposure, or food deserts. All of these issues have HUGE implications on the greater economy and health/wellbeing of the country as a whole. I don't see how ameliorating these issues wouldn't benefit everyone.

Yeah but see since we live in a white-dominated society, it's much worse when it happens to non-whites.

Unless you're a selfish racist. Wait..

Could it be??

Ok this actually sounds racist. The idea that people of color are uniquely qualified to reform the law, fix poverty, improve the school system etc. by virtue of their "experience" with these woes is both groundless and asinine. That's like saying people with mental disorders are uniquely qualified to treat their own illnesses instead of psychiatrists, who have undergone rigorous study and extensive training in the medical field. The idea that you more qualified by virtue of race is inherently racist.

But from my understanding CRT would say we need affirmative action, just even more affirmative.

I can think of a few historical examples where laws were based on things like race... didn't work out.

Would you say that CRT people are just racists with different goals and conclusions?

[Lay Vegan]

I would say you made a great post Lay, but even though you're black, you're still only viewing things from the perspective of a white society. Sorry, but you're wrong.

Darn.

Rational Wiki hasn't provided any empirical evidence that supports point 1.

All the points in that box there come from someone named Kimberlé Crenshaw, the founder of this idea (and intersectionality).

I'm familiar with Crenshaw's work. Intersectionality is another haphazard (but well intentioned) attempt at social analysis. Although I agree with some of its tenets (like being sensitive to adjacent social issues and finding similarities between separate movements) there are some other aspects that can be harmful to pragmatic activism. https://faunalytics.org/intersectional- ... ess-money/

Obviously RW is endorsing her position.

I'm wondering whether RW's endorsement is in blind faith or due to evidence that apparently only they are privy to. The statement that every person in the United States is a racist is a pretty bold claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But from my understanding CRT would say we need affirmative action, just even more affirmative

I can think of a few historical examples where laws were based on things like race... didn't work out.

Like Jim Crow? At least Affirmative Action (in its current iteration) doesn't necessarily adhere to CRT since race may be 1 factor among other peripheral factors (like socioeconomics & extracurriculars) colleges could consider for a student's admission.

Would you say that CRT people are just racists with different goals and conclusions?

In some cases, yes their arguments are eerily similar. I've heard apathetic people in more homogenous communities (like the one I was raised in) complain that paying for lead removal from water is a waste of money that only benefits minorities/poor people. On the flip side I've heard proponents of intersectionality/CRT discourage whites from joining their cause to reform the system because whites are the very people the system "benefits." Both statements are incorrect since all people are negatively affected by poverty, discrimination etc. and steps taken to improve these problems is not zero-sum. The failure of minorities in school does not mean more whites get A's. But yeah, arguments by racists and anti-racist social activists can sometimes sound eerily similar, despite the fact that they have vastly different motives and goals.

[brimstoneSalad]

CRT posits an "interest-convergence theory" which holds that the dominant white culture can tolerate minority successes only when these successes also serve the larger interests of whites. Major civil rights advances occur rarely, and only in situations where whites stand to benefit as well. Every movement toward change is a struggle against the dominant white culture. People of color can only achieve limited success under the current system.

When do major civil rights advances (rooted in reason and evidence) fail to benefit whites and their communities? Whites do not benefit from police violence, urban poverty, youth being poisoned from heavy medal exposure, or food deserts. All of these issues have HUGE implications on the greater economy and health/wellbeing of the country as a whole. I don't see how ameliorating these issues wouldn't benefit everyone.

Even just the idea of a less skilled person holding a job because he was white (and a he). Overall, everybody benefits from the most skilled people holding the relevant positions in the economy: the only ones who don't (in the short term) are "poor white trash" who are unqualified and have probably managed to get slightly more jobs by "virtue" of their white maleness. That's not good for the Bill Gates, Elon Musks, or the Jeff Bezos of the world. The idea that there's a rational conspiracy to prop up whites for the sake of whites just contradicts basic common sense and all reasonable economic theory.

I think there could be some argument to be made to be racist in hiring if there's any truth to "blacks have to work twice as hard to get half as far", which would be to hire the black person if both candidates are otherwise equal under the assumption that the black candidate must have been harder working to achieve that resume (and as such will probably be harder working in your company). However, such a claim would need some empirical evidence to substantiate or you'd just be making an unsubstantiated racist assumption. And it would be something pretty hard to prove and nobody wants to do that kind of research -- it's either people who don't care about the issue, who do care but assume a certain dogma and don't need or want evidence, and then people who are scared to do research in the area because they don't want to be harassed and blacklisted.

[Lay Vegan]

Even just the idea of a less skilled person holding a job because he was white (and a he). Overall, everybody benefits from the most skilled people holding the relevant positions in the economy: the only ones who don't (in the short term) are "poor white trash" who are unqualified and have probably managed to get slightly more jobs by "virtue" of their white maleness. That's not good for the Bill Gates, Elon Musks, or the Jeff Bezos of the world. The idea that there's a rational conspiracy to prop up whites for the sake of whites just contradicts basic common sense and all reasonable economic theory.

On a side note, the Elon Musks and Jeff Bezos' of the world would (ideally) prefer to eliminate workers of all races and invest their money into capital assets rather than salaries. Expenses on machines are tax deductible and depreciate overtime,, and it turns out machines aren't likely to grow dissatisfied with their work, get inured on the job, go on maternity leave, or defect to a competitor before they make a decent return on their initial investment.

If CRT is correct, then our racist white male overlords are truly inept.

I think there could be some argument to be made to be racist in hiring if there's any truth to "blacks have to work twice as hard to get half as far", which would be to hire the black person if both candidates are otherwise equal under the assumption that the black candidate must have been harder working to achieve that resume (and as such will probably be harder working in your company). However, such a claim would need some empirical evidence to substantiate or you'd just be making an unsubstantiated racist assumption. And it would be something pretty hard to prove and nobody wants to do that kind of research -- it's either people who don't care about the issue, who do care but assume a certain dogma and don't need or want evidence, and then people who are scared to do research in the area because they don't want to be harassed and blacklisted.

It sounds like the only kind of "arguments" that can be made here are anecdotes (which aren't very useful). The whole convo becomes useless in fact.

Furthermore I don't believe my personal experience as a black guy in the job market reflects the kinds of narratives told by proponents of CRT. It's unhelpful, yes. But there's not much else to go on lol.

[Red]

Furthermore I don't believe my personal experience as a black guy in the job market reflects the kinds of narratives told by proponents of CRT.

Fool, you have only internalized racism.

[Red]

@Lay Vegan We're working on an article for the Wiki if you wanna contribute
wiki/index.php/Critical_Race_Theory

[BrianBlackwell]

Critical race theory is a purposeful distraction, racist or not. In other words, its features are unimportant because it exists on a plane of consciousness where no principled rational thought can occur.

It's just another way of keeping us at each other's throats so we don't turn our attention to the people who really deserve it. The true forces of oppression in this world care nothing for race, gender, religion, or any other trivial distinction. They care about power, and will readily form alliances based on that ambition.

Critical race theory is one of many ways to get the masses focusing upon (and identifying with) the individualized ego, instead of the holistic self. Were they to do the latter, the resulting sense of unity and conscience would make their enslavement far less expedient.

[Kwashiorkor]

I don't know what this is but my own views on race are controversial. I don't believe we're all one human race as it were. I actually think there are at least three hominid species still extant and interbreeding between them will be to the detriment of at least one of those species, or more specifically the males from my species. Sub-Saharan Africans are the oldest hominid (and that they're even hominids in itself is debatable) species still extant and ever taking them out of Africa was a dear mistake.

As society becomes increasingly Afrocentric see how long veganism or even vegetarianism will last. All I hope for now is a new novel virus which will decimate Sub-Saharan Africa.