What is Reddit's opinion of
Critical Race Theory (Third Edition): An Introduction (Critical America, 20)?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
ProductGPT
Try the custom AI to help you find products that Reddit loves.
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
55 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
I gave you an answer. Go purchase a CRT book on amazon. Here's a popular one:
Critical Race Theory (Third Edition): An Introduction https://www.amazon.com/dp/147980276X/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_KJKGVJK2J8D1877CBFZ3
Then read what they say about "white privilege", "whiteness" and "white supremacy."
There’s a fantastic book that is super accessible and is used in curriculums on the subject and written by the Harvard folks that have championed the push.
You switched your argument from equity to equality. I STRONGLY believe in equality under the law. But what does that have to do with critical theory? If you are equating CRT to equality under the law then you desperately need to read the book.
The very first page talks about the need to disrupt equality principles.
I call things woke when they're woke. The things you are saying are woke.
"Sounds like you need to read a bit of science." Do you mean "do the work(TM)?
"Strawman. I never made that claim. If you don't have any actual arguments, just admit it instead of typing this petty nonsense."
Yes, but Kendi and NHJ did. And you sound an awful lot like they do.
And is this your scientific source? https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X
For context, this review is for Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. I found this because I got curious what the reviews for the book would be. If you want to find the book, here's the link.
It’s not, and I’m not going to get into a protracted conversation with you about CRT and whatever misinterpretation you have on the subject. You can go look up AOC’s Twitter and scroll though it or how about read an actual academic paper on CRT. The idea comes from changing the definition of racism and considering everything else prejudice.
“While assumptions and stereotypes about white people do exist, this is considered racial prejudice, not racism.”
Go buy this and read it https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X/ref=nodl_
I mean, please learn what Critical Race Theory is. Read the first sample chapter here for an overview. The application of it beyond a legal theory is very problematic.
As explained in the Critical Race Theory introduction text, the black critical legal theory lawyers who in the 1960's left that group to start developing critical race theory because, (in their own words), critical legal theory was too white.
Their new work lays out that black communities are not competitive in a meritocratic theory, (again, their words not mine), thus they developed a system for storytelling to inject race into conversation paired with demands for equity as a means for power and wealth redistribution. Center to this is the concept of privilege.
Their writings lay out a disgusting racist world view picked up by your Kendi's and Di Angelo's today. They've managed to repackage the main points Mein Kampf is regarded as an evil ideology, that all the ills of society can be attributed to a racial group, and repackaged it as Mein Kampf for the amorphous set of 'minorities' which shifts with political convenience to demonize new out-groups.
The premise that there is any racial group that cannot compete on merit is rotten and racist. Objectively you can locate examples of all racial groups who are tremendously successful based on merit, immigrants from some countries do disproportionately well compared to similar racial groups from other countries suggesting the root issue lies in culture.
Anyone who trots out the privilege argument, is an extremist.
Have you watched that Evergreen documentary series? Even if you don't agree with my view of it, I think it's valuable simply as a historical document of this moment in time.
I have spent a lot of time engaging with the academic literature. I read "Critical Race Theory: An Introduction" by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic from cover to cover last year before most people had even heard of CRT, so it's been pretty frustrating to watch criticism of it get pigeonholed the way it is now. I'm not a conservative and my sympathies lie with liberalism (I don't want to say "classical liberalism" since Dave Rubin tarnished that phrase, but I haven't found a better word to distinguish from what's commonly called "progressivism").
Well, all I'm saying is you may want to read up on what Critical Race Theory is in modern society. I recommend this book for your reading list. It's a little bit more expansive and scholarly on the topic than just pointing to a Wikipedia page over and over:
> What's a CRT textbook?
Are you playing dumb, or are you actually stupid?
Critical Race Theory (Third Edition): An Introduction
https://www.amazon.com/dp/147980276X/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_KJKGVJK2J8D1877CBFZ3
> And also, white supremacy is an evil that should be abolished
Because it doesn't exist, so if you attack it, you're probably attacking the wrong thing.
https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X
Marx Law Library. In 2001, Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic published their definitive Critical Race Theory, a compact introduction to the field that explained, in straightforward language, the origins, principal themes, leading voices, and new directions of this important movement in legal thought.
I own a copy of this book. This is the book most people use when describing modern day critical race theory. Whether you believe me or not, please read it.
I will add that "critical theory" has historical roots linked to Marxism, and many of its earliest forms were actually attempts to justify authoritarian rule.
https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X
This book is a good source to learn why a lot of social issues are being handled the way that they are. I say this from a neutral position, but encourage you to look into it to decide for yourself. It's contents are discussed and implemented at all levels of policy making currently, to give you context into why it's worth reading about.
Edited due to a dead link the first time, sorry
He read a book on critical race theory to see what all his conservative coworkers were freaking out over, and he found that he actually agreed with it.
He’s not wrong. It’s all in the book. Well maybe not the revenge part but it’s implied between the lines.
https://www.amazon.ca/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X
> What schools are teaching white privilege?
Here's a video of an elementary girl who was traumatized by CTR training.
https://twitter.com/theREALbenORR/status/1408041591567224839
> Why is teaching white privilege a racist idea, and can you prove that it is?
To judge people based on the color of their skin is racist. Consult a dictionary.
> What part of CRT teaches white privilege?
Buy a copy of Critical Race Theory (Third Edition): An Introduction by Richard Delgado https://www.amazon.ca/dp/147980276X/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_8ZC7RYRCPY00HFTRPN13 and read it.
> Do you not think that privilege exists for every culture under the context of different variables, and if so why wouldn't white privilege be relevant to teaching US history?
Because it's racist, and also, bogus. I've never seen a coherent description of white privilege that withstood any scrutiny.
>Where the hell are you getting this notion?
Critical race theory : an introduction (Third ed.). New York. ISBN 978-1479802760.
​
>You mean, according to the definition that you pulled out of your ass?
I mean according to the theory as it is laid out by its authors.
​
>Holy Christ, where are you getting this information from? Steven "Run Away From Sam Seder" Crowder? Ben Shapiro, perhaps?
I am reading first and second hand sources and discussing the theory as it is laid out by its proponents. I am a progressive and a liberal, and unlike you its appears that I actually have engaged with the substance of the theory and its logical frameworks.
>I don't think I've ever met a more confused person. Please go learn what CRT actually means before you blow another gasket.
I think what is happening is that your understanding of CRT goes as far as your understanding of those who are most visibly opposed to it: ie "Conservatives oppose it, therefore I defend it."
I think what I've said is so alarming to you specifically because you don't understand CRT and what I've described it as is offensive to you.
That's okay, because CRT is far-right trash and if you are progressive you should be offended by it.
I mean, as far as what CRT is, there are textbooks, wiki, and articles that explain what it is.
https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=uclf
For the effects of the war on drugs, there are several studies. Many you have to purchase (I know you probably don't want to buy any studies but you might) but you can read the abstract which is a summary of the findings.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102510-105445#article-denial
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#Arrests_and_incarceration
>In 1986, the U.S. Congress passed laws that created a 100 to 1 sentencing disparity for the trafficking or possession of crack when compared to penalties for trafficking of powder cocaine,[82][83][84][85] which had been widely criticized as discriminatory against minorities, mostly blacks, who were more likely to use crack than powder cocaine.[86] This 100:1 ratio had been required under federal law since 1986.[87] Persons convicted in federal court of possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine received a minimum mandatory sentence of 5 years in federal prison. On the other hand, possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine carries the same sentence.[83][84] In 2010, the Fair Sentencing Act cut the sentencing disparity to 18:1.[86]
According to Human Rights Watch, crime statistics show that—in the United States in 1999—compared to non-minorities, African Americans were far more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and received much stiffer penalties and sentences.[88]
Statistics from 1998 show that there were wide racial disparities in arrests, prosecutions, sentencing and deaths. African-American drug users made up for 35% of drug arrests, 55% of convictions, and 74% of people sent to prison for drug possession crimes.[83] Nationwide African-Americans were sent to state prisons for drug offenses 13 times more often than other races,[89] even though they only supposedly comprised 13% of regular drug users.[83]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch
But at the end of the day, I'm not here to educate you. I can provide more links and recommend more textbooks or studies but I can't make you learn.
Pretty sure he said they were form this:
https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X
https://www.amazon.ca/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X
There are other more extreme books on CRT. There's disagreement among it's authors and users. This book is the primer and most reasonable out of all of them in my opinion.
That said I've only read this one myself. The others were recommended to me.
>That's definitely not a CRT thing.
...pulls out book by CRT authors, explaining CRT to allow CRT to speak for itself on the matter of if it believes all white people are involved in suppressing minorities...
>First, racism is ordinary, not aberrational - "normal science," the usual way society does business, the common, everyday experience of most people of color in this country. Second, most would agree that our system of white-over-color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material, for the dominant group. The first feature, ordinariness, means that racism is difficult to address or cure because it is not acknowledged. (pg 8)
>
>The second feature, sometimes called "interest convergence" or material determinism, adds a further dimension. Because racism advances the interests of both white elites (materially) and working-class whites (psychically), large segments of society have little incentive to eradicate it. Consider, for example, Derrick Bell's shocking proposal that Brown v. Board of Educatioin - considered a great triumph of civil rights litigation - may have resulted more from the self-interest of elite whites than from a desire to help blacks. (pg 9)
>
>Critical writers in law, as well as in social science, have drawn attention to the ways the dominant society racializes different minority groups at different times. (pg 10)
>
>Circumstances change so that one group finds it possible to seize advantage or to exploit another. They do so and then form appropriate collective attitudes to rationalize what was done. Moreover, what is true for subordination of minorities is also true for its relief: civil rights gains for communities of color coincide with the dictates of white self-interest. (pg 22)
>
>Why then do we draw the lines the way we do? Addressing this question includes examining what it means to be white, how whiteness became established legally, how certain groups moved in and out of the white race, "passing," the one-drop rule, the phenomenon of white power and white supremacy, and the array of privileges that come with membership in the dominant race. (pg 85)
>
>By contrast, many critical race theorists and social scientists hold that racism is pervasive, systemic, and deeply ingrained. If we take this perspective, then no white member of society seems quite so innocent. (pg 91)
I would describe the book as enlightening, however the authors, like myself (albeit for different reasons), despise the enlightenment.
https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X
You can read this book for more info!!
> But this isn't what critical race theory actually says, right? I'm genuinely asking because I don't know. Is there some CRT guidebook I can read the core philosophy?
Depending on the answers to u/anselben 's questions, I could have more recommendations for you but what I always suggest as starters are:
- Critical Race Theory: An Introduction
- Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement
- Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge
​
These books may not be as useful for someone who's been studying CRT for a while or who has already started moving into more nuanced subfields of CRT. However, I think these, particularly the first one, are invaluable resources for someone who is looking for a clearer definition of exactly what CRT is. The other 2 books are great for finding individual essays that helped to shape the broader field of CRT as well as many that provide entry points to many of the subfields (Critical Latinx Studies aka LatCrit, Critical Disability Studies, Critical Asian Studies, Critical White Studies, etc.) The great thing about the Cutting Edge and the Key Writings is that you can just look through their table of contents and find most of the essays online for free.
​
Another couple of books that I can't resist recommending are
As you can see, I'm a fan of Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic but they are by no means the "authority" on this stuff. I just think they do a really good job of providing approachable primers for a field that is so frequently misunderstood and misrepresented. Another thing worth mentioning is that many of these books are a little old. People have been doing incredible work in the field(s) for years and there are some really fantastic and useful texts that are far more recent. If you're looking to move out of the foundational setting of parameters and into more contemporary or nuanced analyses, I can make more recommendations.
We can argue about semantics all day, regarding what is CRT vs what is CRT inspired.
However, this high school's text book is literally titled
"“Critical Race Theory (Third Edition): An Introduction.”
https://mynorthwest.com/3420690/rantz-bellevue-high-school-teaches-critical-race-theory-crt/amp/
https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X
This is as direct as it comes.
We can argue about semantics all day, regarding what is CRT vs what is CRT inspired.
However, this high school's text book is literally titled
"“Critical Race Theory (Third Edition): An Introduction.”
https://mynorthwest.com/3420690/rantz-bellevue-high-school-teaches-critical-race-theory-crt/amp/
https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X
This is as direct as it comes.
>Is CRT just an abstract legal theory?
>
>Start with the first claim, about the nature and influence of CRT. Law professors Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic are not only critical race theorists themselves, but the authors of <em>Critical Race Theory: An Introduction</em>, a well-known primer on the subject. They write:
>
>Although CRT began as a movement in the law, it has rapidly spread beyond that discipline. Today, many scholars in the field of education consider themselves critical race theorists who use CRT’s ideas to understand issues of school discipline and hierarchy, tracking, affirmative action, high-stakes testing, controversies over curriculum and history, bilingual and multilingual education, and alternative and charter schools. (p. 7)
>
>They then go on to cite “political scientists,” “women’s studies professors,” “ethnic studies,” “American studies,” “philosophers,” “sociologists, theologians, and health care specialists” as among the scholars, professionals, and fields influenced by, and applying ideas drawn from, CRT (pp. 7-8). Similarly, law professor Angela Harris’s foreword to Delgado and Stefancic’s book notes that:
>
>Critical race theory has exploded from a narrow sub-specialty of jurisprudence chiefly of interest to academic lawyers into a literature read in departments of education*, cultural studies, English, sociology, comparative literature, political science, history, and anthropology around the country*. (p. xvi)
>
>Delgado and Stefancic also note that though CRT began as a movement in the law, the influences on its development extend well beyond that field, and include “radical feminism,” the Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci, and the postmodernists Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida (p. 5). And they emphasize that “unlike some academic disciplines, critical race theory contains an activist dimension. It tries not only to understand our social situation but to change it” and indeed “transform it” (p. 8). They cite the push for “reconstructing the criminal justice system” and the “‘Black Lives Matter’ movement” as among the practical applications of ideas associated with CRT (p. 124).
>
>Another representative CRT work is the anthology <em>Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement</em>, edited by Kimberlé Crenshaw, Neil Gotanda, Gary Peller, and Kendall Thomas. In their introduction to the volume, they note that the Critical Legal Studies movement “organized by a collection of neo-Marxist intellectuals, former New Left activists, ex-counter-culturalists” and the like “played a central role in the genesis of Critical Race Theory” (p. xvii). They write that:
>
>By legitimizing the use of race as a theoretical fulcrum and focus in legal scholarship, so-called racialist accounts of racism and the law grounded the subsequent development of Critical Race Theory in much the same way that Marxism’s introduction of class structure and struggle into classical political economy grounded subsequent critiques of hierarchy and social power. (p. xxv)
>
>And in another obvious echo of Marxism, they emphasize that CRT is an activist movement devoted to “liberation,” whose theorists “desire not merely to understand the vexed bond between law and racial power but to change it” (p. xiii).
>
>Hence, when CRT’s critics portray it as far more than a mere academic legal theory and indeed as a wide-ranging revolutionary political program with Marxist and postmodernist influences, which has swept through academia and seeks radically to transform society through the educational and criminal justice systems, they are not manufacturing a bogeyman. They are simply repeating what CRT advocates themselves have explicitly said.
i'm linking the actual damned book, fool. put your money where your mouth is https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction-dp-147980276X/dp/147980276X/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
Okay. Here's the Encyclopædia Britannica article that outlines it.
For further reading, I recommend <em>Critical Race Theory: An Introduction</em> by Richard Delgado which describes it further.
You have seen, it was in this video, of actual documentation with it?
You can also do your own research just looking for it.
https://bookriot.com/critical-race-theory-books/
https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X
The 1619 project, which is udder and complete bullshit is on the list.
>Unless you can show me that happening, we can rest assured that is not and has not happened.
Sorry that's not how science or logic works.
https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X
This book is one of the key pieces of CRT scholarship, giving an introduction.
There is a summary here.
It also shows some of the other BS conservatives don't like besides the dumb "reality is storytelling" stuff. Like how CRT expressly endorses Black Nationalism. And revisionist history. And is anti-liberalism/pro-socialism.
People who tell you that CRT is "just teaching about the history of racism" are intentionally lying to you. The theory is much crazier and more malicious.
Ah give me a bit of credit, my views are not informed by PraegerU, Ted Cruz or Fox News. I’m a tiny bit more sophisticated than that. I’m referring to the actual academics from the actual universities that actually came up with this stuff. Names like Kimberlé Crenshaw of UCLA (she invented it back in 1989), Neil Gotanda of WSU (he helped) as well as Richard Delgado from the University of Alabama who has written a bunch of books about CRT, notably Critical Race Theory, An Introduction which I’m actually ordering right now to make sure I’m right about this by getting it straight from the horse’s mouth. Believe it or not I don’t hold conservative views because of ignorance and dogmatism. I was actually a leftist for many years before I realized that leftist ideology is probably not the ultimate truth that leftist pundits purport it to be.
For a quick introduction it seems that James Lindsey despite his starkly anti CRT views has done a good job of explaining and unpacking a lot of this and discussing from the perspective of someone who is not a Critical Race Theorist, since as you said CRT is a highly complex subject that many people do not understand. I recommend listening to Critical Race Theory is Race Marxism for an introduction to all this stuff, if you want to understand my perspective. If you want to go deeper with his content he also has a 5 part lecture about it that goes way more in depth. He also covers Critical Pedagogy and Critical Education Theory more broadly. I haven’t gotten too deep into those topics yet, just his podcasts about it, but that’ll be my next stop after I read Critical Race Theory an Introduction.
Ive browsed through a CRT textbook and what you describe is not CRT.
Critical Race Theory (Third Edition): An Introduction (Critical America, 20) https://www.amazon.com/dp/147980276X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_i_P3VMS61FT2WG6QBE4GV6
>non-existent CRT
Holy. fucking. shit. Read the damn theory for yourself please.
Critical Race Theory (Third Edition): An Introduction (Critical America, 20) https://www.amazon.com/dp/147980276X/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_i_HA46BGSTJFY8STKC6JHM
Critical Race Theory (Third Edition): An Introduction (Critical America, 20) https://www.amazon.com/dp/147980276X/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_i_F0HB3QP159KKN9TQE8WT
This one, written by the people who coined the theory.
I know what you are getting at and no, "Neo-Marxism" is not "Cultural Marxism" (the Nazi conspiracy theory). You are conflating the two either out of ignorance, or you are doing it out of ideological zealotry in an attempt to discredit the concept through equivocation and straw-manning. I'll be charitable and assume it's the former, not the latter.
So "what the fuck does Wokeism has to do with Marxism", you ask?
Well, it's mentioned and directly referenced throughout their academic work. For example, Alison Bailey's <em>Tracking Privilege-preserving Epistemic Pushback in Feminist and Critical Race Philosophy Classrooms</em> states that:
> Critical pedagogy begins from a different set of assumptions rooted in the neo-Marxian literature on critical theory commonly associated with the Frankfurt School. [...] [It] regards the claims that students make in response to social-justice issues not as propositions to be assessed for their truth value, but as expressions of power that function to re-inscribe and perpetuate social inequalities. Its mission is to teach students ways of identifying and mapping how power shapes our understandings of the world.
Other writings such as Delgado and Stefancic's <em>Critical Race Theory: An Introduction</em>, Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man, Angela Davis, Kimberlé Crenshaw, a.s.o. all draw heavily from Marxist conflict theory. The history and links between CRT and (neo-)Marxism are more explicitly laid out in Gottesman's Critical Turn in Education, but you don't need a deep analysis to form the link between critical social justice and these authors. As exemplified above, it's right there, explicitly stated in their writings.
In One-Dimensional Man and Repressive Tolerance Marcuse even lays out how one should instrumentalize critical social justice in order to further Marxists ideals and goals.
To be honest, I find it puzzling how anyone with a modest understanding of critical social justice would contest the link Marxism.
We've already heard that speech, it's not one of the better ones they wrote. You should probably read a little CRT literature so you can at least sound like you know what you're talking about.
Critical Race Theory: An Introduction is a good place to start. It has a stellar definition of CRT in the Introduction that I've pointed a number of people to for a good CRT summary. I'll do the same for you:
"The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up, but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, context, group- and self-interest, and even feelings and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces 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.
Although CRT began as a movement in the law, it has rapidly spread beyond that discipline. Today, many in the field of education consider themselves critical race theorists who use CRT’s ideas to understand issues of school discipline and hierarchy, tracking, controversies over curriculum and history, and IQ and achievement testing. Political scientists ponder voting strategies coined by critical race theorists. Ethnic studies courses often include a unit on critical race theory, and American studies departments teach material on critical white studies developed by CRT writers.
Unlike some academic disciplines, critical race theory contains an activist dimension. It not only tries to understand our social situation, but to change it; it sets out not only to ascertain how society organizes itself along racial lines and hierarchies, but to transform it for the better."
Emphasis added.
I’ve read the actual published papers, not Wikipedia and yes I disagree with a lot of it, not all. https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X/ref=nodl_
If you weren't already aware, here is the play book:
https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X
More manageable:
https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023
Good video primer by T1J on the matter, for those who are interested. It's a very nuanced topic that - unsurprisingly - has been oversimplified to get people angry and strongly commit to weird online debates, both by politicians and (sadly) by the scholars themselves. The popular book on the subject is an incredibly interesting read, although not super easy if you're not used to "proper" philosophical texts. Still, there's some genuinely weird stuff in it.
> Sometimes I wonder if they shouldn't have called it the "Frankfurt School of Race Theory".
Considering how much certain portions of North American academia really like to pretend they aren't influenced by the European scholars they often (mis)quote - I'm mostly thinking of Derrida - I think there would be strong ideological resistance to do so. Also CRT really focuses on the specific problems of American societies, so maybe give it the name of a German city would have been confusing.
Hey, we were talking in a different area but you answered my question here.
So, Jesus tells the story of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37. You should ask yourself why it's important that this man is a Good Samaritan and not just some random dude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan#Samaritans_and_Jesus
This is a common story used in the Bible to explain that racism is bad, and that just because God sees people as equal does not mean mortal man does the same. The Jews of the Biblical narrative do not like Samaritans, and the idea is that an enemy transcends what is analogous to racial boundaries to lend assistance to someone in need. The racial / nationalist dynamic here is important. I do not believe acknowledging disparities in how individuals are treated by wider society is anti-Christian.
Critical race theory teaches that what can seem like an equal position, especially from a perspective that does not directly experience racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. as a cultural norm, is often not an equitable position. It's the homeowner asking the homeless man why he doesn't just buy a house if there are no laws preventing him from doing so.
A barrier you're going to encounter in wanting to learn about this is that a lot of critical race theory is written for and by academia. It like many fields is lost in a lot of jargon and other bullshit. You should however try to find a non-religious introduction to the field to establish a foundation before going into how it works through a religious lens.
https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X
lol the pile of racist dogshit being taught to kids is literally called Critical Race Theory.
https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X
Once again, marxists scramble like cockroaches when the lights go on.
Yea, it actually does reject them, certainly liberalism and civil rights. These quotes are from this book - https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?crid=L179N6VILLIC
​
>The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and
scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. 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.
and
>[Critical] movements initially advocated for a type of liberal humanism
(individualism, freedom, and peace) but quickly turned to a rejection of
liberal humanism. The ideal of individual autonomy that underlies
liberal humanism (the idea that people are free to make independent
rational decisions that determine their own fate) was viewed as a
mechanism for keeping the marginalized in their place by obscuring
larger structural systems of inequality. In other words, it fooled
people into believing that they had more freedom and choice than
societal structures actually allow.
CRT begins with the assumption that racism is ordinary in our societies and present in all interactions and social and cultural phenomena, and it is up to the Critical Race Theorist—using a Woke critical consciousness—to “make it visible” and “call it out.” In Critical Race Theory, the question is not
“did racism take place?” but rather, “how did racism manifest in that
situation?”
If anyone is interested, there are introductions to CRT which show that it is generally committed to much more than just this. For example, CRT theorists tend to affirm standpoint epistemology, the idea that nonwhites just know more about their own oppression than whites do.
https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X
> how we all have to bend the knee to the alphabet people and such . . . labels and gender identity are more important than anything
Your concerns here are relatable. One thing to keep in mind is that contemporary leftist culture is plagued by a variety of fauxgressive (i.e., ostensibly leftist but actually regressive) views, particularly when it comes to sexuality, women, and gender. As for the latter, the dominant ideology surrounding trans issues is actually thoroughly conservative. Due to its promulgation of biological determinist explanations of gender identity and its insistence that pronouns be used in reference to gender rather than biological sex, this ideology legitimates the social construct of gender, which of course is oppressive. Given that leftism is characteristically anti-oppressive, this ideology's adherents are clearly not leftist.
>where being a singe white heterosexual male is a crime
While many fauxgressives take the social scientific fact that racism is white supremacy a bit too far and use it to justify bigotry against whites, I'd urge you to not discount the plethora of evidence demonstrating that whites are indeed a politically, economically, and culturally dominant panethnic group across the globe. (For further reading on this point, I'd recommend racial justice educator Robin DiAngelo's <em>White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism</em>, Duke University sociology professor Eduardo Bonilla-Silva's <em>Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States</em>, and UA School of Law professors Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic's <em>Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (3rd Edition)</em>.) You can reject these people's hateful distortions of science without also discarding the science itself. As they say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Regarding hostility against single males, this of course is related to society's hostility toward incels and is just as fauxgressive. Those who harbor such hostility fail to accept that inceldom, like all social inequalities, is generated by oppressive social, cultural, political, and economic factors. Instead, in typical conservative fashion they resort to victim blaming ("Incels can't get laid because of their rotten personality") and fatalist, naturalistic thinking ("Some people are just too ugly to ever get laid, and that's just the way it is") in rationalizing sexual inequality. Clearly, just like adherents of the dominant ideology concerning trans issues are not at all leftist, these people similarly have highly conservative leanings.
> That doesn't mean I have any love for the right either, as they're just as insane as the left is
I want to stress that the people that you describe are not leftists, regardless of how they self-identify. The central tenets of leftist philosophy include equality, harmony, and peace. By contrast, the promotion of biological determinism, reinforcement of the oppressive gender construct, bigotry against whites, denial of the oppressive sociocultural origins of sexual inequality, etc., are in blatant violation of these principles. One last time: These misguided fauxgressives are not leftists!
I am just as incensed about the current fauxgressive situation among the "left" as you are. But it's important for us to recognize it for what it is: An insidious, widespread, conservative infiltration of leftist communities. As genuine leftists, the onus is on us to help steer these communities back on track. Abandoning the cause will not be helpful for anyone.
Again, if it was just Karens bitching in their schools about the progressive bogeyman, I would agree with you. I'm not a conservative, nor have I ever considered myself a conservative. I voted for Bernie Sanders. I hated Donald Trump. I've always been a left-leaning liberal, but I reject the extreme left modern progressive politics.
If you watched the video I shared, for example, all that happened was that concerned members of the community attempted to address the problems they saw with the Pennsbury Schoolboard's "Equity" plan. We already know that Equity initiatives are usually ways that American schoolboards attempt to sneak CRT into the curriculum by calling it a different name. In attempting to address the Pennbury Schoolboard's new Equity curriculum, they were silenced and their free speech rights were violated. Don't take my word for it, watch the video.
The problem is, I have the inclination that no amount of evidence I present to you is going to convince you which makes your position unfalsifiable. If you are a philosophy professor, you probably realize that having an unfalsifiable position means that it's not even possible for your interlocuter (in this case me) to even engage in a good-faith debate with you. Apparently the Florida government website and the person widely accepted as the foremost expert on Critical Race Theory in American schools aren't authoritative sources for you.
Okay, how about the fact that 30 public school districts in 15 states are teaching a book, 'Not My Idea', that tells readers that “whiteness” leads white people to make deals with the devil for “stolen land, stolen riches, and special favors.” White people get to “mess endlessly with the lives of your friends, neighbors, loved ones, and all fellow humans of color for the purpose of profit,” the book adds.
The claims in this book, Not My Idea, being taught in countless American schools, come straight out of Critical Race Theory. Including the conception of whiteness as a metaphysical concept which has embedded itself into the American structure (and into white people) and the concept of privilege, coming straight from the Intersectionality that CRT so heavily leans on through its work. Additionally, the concept of Race-Consciousness, another CRT tenet, or the belief that we must bring the discussion and recognition of race into the public dialogue and into the forefront of our minds in order to address it. Finally, the idea that racism is not aberrational but a normal everyday feature of human life which is present in every institution and interaction.
All of the above concepts are present in most of the "Equity" curriculums being taught in American schools, and these are ideas which come straight out of CRT. My source is Critical Race Theory: An Introduction by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. You're free to check it out and verify the claims I just made yourself.
However, if you're going to try and pivot by saying that I don't know what CRT is when I'm just paraphrasing from its most seminal modern text, written specifically so that the authors could help the average person understand what it is in plain English, I see no further reason to continue a dialogue with you.
The above list *IS* from serious CRT academics.
These guys are not just considered serious academics, they are the PREMIER CRT academics that everyone follows: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/147980276X?pf_rd_r=5KR2RS6XTN8NYRHCD134
Here is a quote from their book:
>One of the key contributions of critical theorists concerns the production of knowledge. Given that the transmission of knowledge is an integral activity in schools, critical scholars in the field of education have been especially concerned with how knowledge is produced.These scholars argue that a key element of social injustice involves the claim that particular knowledge is objective, neutral, and universal. An approach based on critical theory calls into question the idea that objectivity is desirable or even possible. The term used to describe this way of thinking about knowledge is that knowledge is socially constructed. When we refer to knowledge as socially constructed we mean that knowledge is reflective of the values and interests of those who produce it. (p. 7)
Got that? The scientific method is no good, because it was created by and is used by white people.
I define pure history as just the facts.
History should not be taught in the context of what you want done next. That should be left up to the reader.
CRT is not simply history.
Critical Race Theory, an Introduction (Third Edition)
Available here
If you can find a PDF online, you can avoid buying the book. But it criticizes legal equality and constitutional neutrality, because it feels that we need to bake race consciousness into our legal system. If you can't find the book online, you can also check out Critical Race Theory, Race Equity, and Public Health: Toward Antiracism Praxis (PubMed) for a study along the same vain, but very focused on health.
This is starkly different from what the Civil Rights movement aimed to accomplish.
Most Americans would not want different laws applied to people based on their race.
CRT is a proposition on how to think about and handle race differences going forward, and it's dishonest to think it is limited to just "teaching history".
You act as if they don't read
https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X
Popular alternatives to Critical Race Theory (Third...
White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism
