critical race theory

[_33]

I can't speak for CRT, but establishing race as a social construct is important because it doesn't deny the that the concept of race exists.  If they are going to talk about race they need to define their terms; they are defining race as a social concept and not a biological one. When they talk about Black they don't assert there is some "true" biological definition for Black.  If someone is Black, it's because society has agreed that they are Black.

Makes more sense.  Still slightly over my head but I'm tracking better now.

[_33]

Theory is that inequities in society today are a result of systematic racism/injustice that has never been addressed.

In the limited research I've done it's actually quite a bit more than just this, although systemic racism is certainly a part of it.  Again, although I disagree with CRT in some areas I can find areas I agree with as well.

I think there is a lack of evidence for many of the claims, at least in the reading I have done.  A lot of absolute statements with nothing to back it up except the writings of the founders of CRT.

[Cire]

Just agreeing that historical racism has led to current inequality is a step.

I know plenty of people who would absolutely disagree with that assertion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sys]

leaving aside the social construct part, i feel qualified to offer some background on the biological basis of "race" in humans.

to start with, "race" is in current general use, but it is also an antiquated term that was commonly employed in biology up until maybe 50-70 years ago or so.  it more or less overlaps with "subspecies" but was less precisely defined and used.  nonetheless, the generally understood meaning was plain.  a race was a sub-specific grouping of animals based on geography.  at least in the latter time-periods that race was in use, and certainly ever since race went out of style as a biological term, it would also imply that the group was monophyletic, meaning that all members of the group shared a common ancestor at a more recent time than any of them shared an ancestor with any organism not a member of the group.

at the most basic level, the statement that human races do not have a biological basis in reality is stating that the common divisions of humanity called races do not describe monophyletic groups.

[steve dave]

It’s pretty wild that, from where ksufans started, we have so many people on here that are smart AF.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[_33]

leaving aside the social construct part, i feel qualified to offer some background on the biological basis of "race" in humans.

to start with, "race" is in current general use, but it is also an antiquated term that was commonly employed in biology up until maybe 50-70 years ago or so.  it more or less overlaps with "subspecies" but was less precisely defined and used.  nonetheless, the generally understood meaning was plain.  a race was a sub-specific grouping of animals based on geography.  at least in the latter time-periods that race was in use, and certainly ever since race went out of style as a biological term, it would also imply that the group was monophyletic, meaning that all members of the group shared a common ancestor at a more recent time than any of them shared an ancestor with any organism not a member of the group.

at the most basic level, the statement that human races do not have a biological basis in reality is stating that the common divisions of humanity called races do not describe monophyletic groups.

Thanks sys, after I looked up 'monophyletic' your explanation helped my understanding quite a bit.

[catastrophe]

My only contribution is being kinda surprised that in my osteology class you could classify bones as having caucasoid, mongoloid, or negroid qualities. Basically those are the only “races” we ever talked about, with mongoloid including both Asian and Native/South American.

[sys]

pretty interesting on the theme of human diversity.

https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1408982546180972547

[CNS]

I thought it was well established that we are all part Neanderthal now?  Wouldn’t that make his chart wrong?

[sys]

I thought it was well established that we are all part Neanderthal now?  Wouldn’t that make his chart wrong?

yes it is, except for some smallish populations in africa.  no, the chart is somewhat simplified.  it doesn't show every (or any, actually) hybrid introgression or lineage that reticulated back into another lineage.

[MakeItRain]

https://twitter.com/glynnwashington/status/1408454477040930817

[MakeItRain]

https://twitter.com/SeanCasten/status/1408795498530627584

[_33]

https://twitter.com/SeanCasten/status/1408795498530627584

That really long thread barely talks about CRT at all.  I'm actually disappointed and starting to agree with Kat Kid that it just means different things to different people.  There is no agreed upon definition.  Just another partisan issue that politicians can use to pander to their base, whether pro-CRT or anti-CRT.

[Cire]

He’s speaking to the back lash against the idea.

CRT has core tenets


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MakeItRain]

https://twitter.com/SeanCasten/status/1408795498530627584

That really long thread barely talks about CRT at all.  I'm actually disappointed and starting to agree with Kat Kid that it just means different things to different people.  There is no agreed upon definition.  Just another partisan issue that politicians can use to pander to their base, whether pro-CRT or anti-CRT.

Why are you choosing to 1. politicize crt and 2. proceed to both sides it? There is absolutely and unquestionably one political party that has made this a political issue.

If you don't believe in critical race theory, just say you don't, no need to hide behind "politics."

[Kat Kid]

https://twitter.com/glynnwashington/status/1408454477040930817

This is very true and everyone should read Redlined but one thing that Nikole Hannah-Jones and some others have done which I think is a real disservice to the left is being overly dismissive of the New Deal as racist. A lot of bullshit got thrown about this toward FDR recently (and by extension Bernie) and it is self-defeating.

[Kat Kid]

https://twitter.com/SeanCasten/status/1408795498530627584

That really long thread barely talks about CRT at all.  I'm actually disappointed and starting to agree with Kat Kid that it just means different things to different people.  There is no agreed upon definition.  Just another partisan issue that politicians can use to pander to their base, whether pro-CRT or anti-CRT.

That wasn’t exactly my point. My point is that some people are purposefully misinterpreting, but I also don’t think there is a universally agreed upon set of “facts” or something because it is just a theoretical framework for looking at history.

[CNS]

Not that it’s going to hell with the masses, buy I think it would be a more productive convo to think of racism as tribalism.  It keeps the basics and takes the scientific difference argument out.

[MakeItRain]

https://twitter.com/SeanCasten/status/1408795498530627584

That really long thread barely talks about CRT at all.  I'm actually disappointed and starting to agree with Kat Kid that it just means different things to different people.  There is no agreed upon definition.  Just another partisan issue that politicians can use to pander to their base, whether pro-CRT or anti-CRT.

That wasn’t exactly my point. My point is that some people are purposefully misinterpreting, but I also don’t think there is a universally agreed upon set of “facts” or something because it is just a theoretical framework for looking at history.

Wanting a black and white explanation of something with the word theory sitting right in the title seems like an intentional elevation of expectations.

[Cire]

It’s not for understanding history it’s a call to action for today


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spracne]

Just drop the label but teach the same crap. Problem solved.

[MakeItRain]

Just drop the label but teach the same crap. Problem solved.

Naw, we can't keep doing this when it comes to race. CRT goes back to the 70's, that term wasn't a problem until fear-mongering, race-baiting republican politicians bastardized the term. You all have to stop telling us how we need to talk about race to get you all to listen and engage. Can't use CRT, can't talk about slavery, can't say black lives matter. How can these conversations happen when we can't even get approval to use the most academically neutral terms.

[CNS]

Just drop the label but teach the same crap. Problem solved.

Naw, we can't keep doing this when it comes to race. CRT goes back to the 70's, that term wasn't a problem until fear-mongering, race-baiting republican politicians bastardized the term. You all have to stop telling us how we need to talk about race to get you all to listen and engage. Can't use CRT, can't talk about slavery, can't say black lives matter. How can these conversations happen when we can't even get approval to use the most academically neutral terms.

That’s fair

[Cire]

Just drop the label but teach the same crap. Problem solved.

Naw, we can't keep doing this when it comes to race. CRT goes back to the 70's, that term wasn't a problem until fear-mongering, race-baiting republican politicians bastardized the term. You all have to stop telling us how we need to talk about race to get you all to listen and engage. Can't use CRT, can't talk about slavery, can't say black lives matter. How can these conversations happen when we can't even get approval to use the most academically neutral terms.

If it makes you uncomfortable, that’s the problem


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MakeItRain]

My issue with this thread and by extension the entire conversation is the academic tone of it all. It's a ridiculous and completely counterproductive way to talk about and deal with race and racism. As someone who has seen plenty of racism, I don't know how talking about anthropology is going to fix anything.

Treat racism where it is and how it is. Focusing on academic studies won't do anything to address how black people feel about Asians and the perception they are preferred by powerful white people and always have been. Or what to do about dark skinned, practicing Muslims being the "new ni***r."

When I was passed over for a job that I definitely deserved when I lived in Garden City, that didn't have anything to do with "cultural competency."

We know what racism is, we know why it happens, all of this other stuff are just ways to soft sell racism and make people more comfortable, because if they're more comfortable they're more likely to be introspective. To that I say bullshit. Racism is a sledge hammer, it's a pipe bomb in a day care. You don't handle that with a velvet hammer or with diplomacy, time for that has long passed, it's not working.