critical race theory i guess

The idea of Critical Race Theory was really first introduced to the public in a book titled Critical Race Theory, an Introduction by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic that was published in 2001 but has roots extending back to the civil rights movement in the seventies. The most central tenet of their book, and CRT in general, is the idea that racism is a "normal science," meaning that racism is normal, ordinary, and accepted in society. So, in short, the theory suggests that race racism is present in various aspects of American culture and in various institutions or systems and explores the how and why in addition to how it can be fixed. In other worse, CRT argues that American society has a distinctly racist tint, and that this is reflected in the practice of law and elsewhere. This is perhaps best displayed by the US legal and law enforcement system. Some idiots will confuse this phrase of "normal science" to mean that CRT proposes that science or math are racist but this is not the case. Drawing from a summary of CRT from Purdue Owl the theory "emphasizes the importance of examining and attempting to understand the socio-cultural forces that shape how we and others perceive, experience, and respond to racism" and "CRT scholars typically focus on both the evidence and the origins of racism in American culture, seeking to eradicate it at its roots." The American Bar Association identifies that Critical Race Theory "critiques how the social construction of race and institutionalized racism perpetuate a racial caste system that relegates people of color to the bottom tiers," and "acknowledges that the legacy of slavery, segregation, and the imposition of second-class citizenship on Black Americans and other people of color continue to permeate the social fabric of this nation." So basically CRT sets out to explore and answer the question of how discrimination, oppression, segregation, et cetera manifest today. It is worth mentioning that it is not static, but the theory can evolve and change. It is also worth mentioning that CRT does not perceive every case of racial disparity as racist, as Charles R. Lawrence writes in an article seen as "a foundational document of Critical Race Theory," as per Georgetown Law. Lawrence writes: "But not every case of racially disparate impact has racial meaning" and goes on to say that "there must be something in the particulars of its historical and cultural context that causes us to interpret this action-at least intuitively-in racial terms." Those particulars in cultural and historical context? - "the nature of the work or activity from which blacks have been excluded" and "the reason given for their exclusion." This context then begs the question "are the discriminatory practices of [organization/institution/business/et cetera] seen as or defended as a necessary adaptation to the racist beliefs and practices of the culture?"

Critical Race Theory is somewhat related to Critical Theory, which "is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole" and aims "to dig beneath the surface of social life and uncover the assumptions that keep human beings from a full and true understanding of how the world works," as per Thought Co. Thus, it can be determined that critical race theory focuses on how perceptions of race prevent us from understanding the world. Apparently this critical theory has ties to Marxist and the Frankfurt school in Germany (this will cause many idiots to make the same arguments against CRT as the Nazis did against the same type of boogeymen).

David Gillborn identifies two "central elements" of CRT in his research article "Who's Afraid of Critical Race Theory in Education? A Reply to Mike Cole's ‘the Color-Line and the Class Struggle’" which are:

• Racism: "a subtle and pervasive force in society that is so deep rooted as to appear ‘normal’ to the majority."

• Critique of liberalism: pointing "to the failure of notions such as ‘merit’, ‘neutrality’ and ‘colorblindness’, which masquerade as fair and just but, because of the uneven playing field of contemporary racist society, actually function to ensure the continuation of race inequality."

In addition to these elements Gillborn identifies that a central tenet of CRT is a "deep commitment to promoting real change in the position of minoritized groups."

Nicholas Daniel Hartlep identifies five key tenets of CRT in his research article "Critical Race Theory: An Examination of its Past, Present, and Future Implications" published by the University of Wisconsin. They are:

1. Racism is ordinary, normal even, and not aberrational.

   • This is pretty self explanatory. This tenet proposes that racism is a normal facet of society embedded in certain institutions or systems rather than specific and individual instances. From the American Bar Association: "This dismisses the idea that racist incidents are aberrations but instead are manifestations of structural and systemic racism."

   • The idea of color-blindness is part of this tenet, as it legitimized racism's need for an "other" to flourish and be present in society, as is the idea of meritocracy which Essentially, the combination of color-blindness and meritocracy assumes that any one, regardless of race, who works hard enough, can advance in society thus, dismissing differentiated social experiences associated with race.

   • From the research article "Critical Race Theory - What it is Not!" by Gloria Ladson-Billings: "This is the thing that distinguishes CRT scholars from others who investigate race. Some focus on specific instances of racism or might admit to institutional racism."

2. Interest convergence.

   • Essentially this is the idea that the "haves" will only support the "have-nots" when it is in the "haves" interest to do so (not out of the kindness of their hearts). Here, it is that white people will only support racial justice/progress to the extent that there is something to be gained from it - a convergence of interests between the interests of white and black people. A good example of this is why many white Americans saw slavery as bad in the nation's early years. Many who believed slavery should be made illegal believed so not because they believed it was wrong to enslave another race which was unequal or lesser but because they didn't want black people in the country. Thus, a white person's interest - to have a country with only white people - aligned with a black person's interest - not being a slave. This can also be seen in Abraham Lincoln's first Emancipation proclamation in 1862. He threatened to free all the slaves in rebel states if the Confederacy did not surrender within a certain timeframe. Thus we can see that a white person's interest - ending a civil war - aligned with a black person's interest - not being a slave.

   • This is not so much the case anymore, in my opinion, but we can still see it today when companies were putting out statements against racism in the wake of George Floyd's killing because saying racism is bad publicly aligned with their interest of getting more attention to their brand and making money.

3. Race is socially constructed.

   • Fairly self explanatory. This is a whole can of worms on it's own so I won't be touching it for now. Weirdly though, we can see this idea that race is socially constructed in the "one drop" Jim Crow rule which defined anyone who had even a drop of "Negro" blood as a "Negro." Today we would hardly classify anyone who had just one black ancestor as a black person, showing that race is socially constructed and a concept that changes over time.

4. Storytelling and counter-storytelling.

   • Essentially this tenet identifies that "the idea of storytelling comes from its powerful, persuasive, and explanatory ability to unlearn beliefs that are commonly believed to be true," and can be applied to a variety of "common sense," "mainstream," or assumed beliefs. For example the belief that the justice system treats people of all races equally and fairly would be the common sense/mainstream beliefs but in looking at various forms of research and data this is not the case (see the "Racial Bias in the Legal System and Law Enforcement System" tab on the BLM page) and that belief must be "unlearned." Without this counter storytelling tool "the true stories would never be publicly proclaimed, and perhaps the world would come to believe and perceive that all was fine." Basically, this tenet is just a fancy way of combining the sayings "all stories have two sides," and "history is written by the victors" and the acceptance of just one side of the story, so to speak, is cringe. Consider things from a different perspective. From Ladson-Billings' article: "Critical race theorists use storytelling as a way to illustrate and underscore broad legal principles regarding race and racial/social justice. The point of storytelling is not to vent or rant or be an exhibitionist regarding one’s own racial struggle." I would say that this TED talk - The Danger of a Single Story - is a good example of this tenet.

     • Another example that really stood out to me comes from Derrick Bell's book "And we are not saved: The elusive quest for racial justice" which shows how much white people benefit from black crime and black crime serves the interests of white people. Most black crime is perpetrated on black people so white people are rarely the victims of black crime and black crime creates many opportunities for white folks: because black people are incarcerated at a higher rate than white people there are less and less black people that could compete with white people for many jobs and black crime creates jobs like security guards, police officers, probation officers, prison guards, prison construction firms, prison owners, prison wardens, et cetera. Black crime largely benefits white people because the victims of black crime are mainly black while the beneficiaries are the white people who get job opportunities and pay their bills as a result of black crime. In this counter-story, black crime serves the interests of and largely benefits white people, giving white people an incentive to NOT end/solve/address black crime. Ladson-Billings gives a summary of this story Bell tells which revolves around a magic pill that changes black men from street criminals to upstanding members of society.

       • Racism as being beneficial to white people is arguably a sixth tenet of Critical Race Theory. This suggest that white people as a class benefit from racism, and so there is a major force de-incentivizing them, the dominant racial class, from ending institutional racism.

5. White people have been recipients of civil rights legislation.

   • Another fairly easy concept to grasp here. I'll list some examples below:

     • In general, white people were given the right to vote long before any other people in America, as only white men who owned land and were over the age of 21 were the first to get the right to vote.

     • 1790 Naturalization Act: Limited American citizenship to only white people who had lived in America for at least two years and to their children aged 21 or younger.

     • 1830 Indian Removal Act: Land ownership was gifted to white Americans from the federal government after the government forced Native Americans off their land.

     • 1862 Homestead Act: The federal government granted 160 acres of land to settlers on the condition that they live on it and improve it. Worth nothing that it was available to freed slaves but let's be honest the majority of people who lived in America and had the means to uproot their life and start a new was mainly white people.

     • 1935 Social Security Act: The act excluded workers who held jobs as agricultural or domestic workers, a large portion of which were black. While the act was not racially motivated specifically to exclude black people in effect it did and most who benefitted from it were white.

     • The GI Bill: I talk about this in detail under the "The Black Military Experience" on the The Flag(s) page.

     • 19th Amendment: While it gave all women the right to vote, white women benefitted from this more since they were not subject to discriminatory things such as literacy tests (take a look at this one from Louisiana), the grandfather clause, and property tests that were a part of the Jim Crow laws in the South.

     • Thanks to this article for the help in identifying some of these policies.

Literally banning ideas you don't like is pretty absurd, but I think there are four main factors that can explain the motivations of most people behind these anti-CRT laws and the general disdain towards black perspective being featured in education. They're either:

• Genuinely a racist but hide it behind terms like "woke" to appeal to more people and make their views seem more socially acceptable.

• Unfamiliar with black perspectives, and because they don't want to learn about, think about, or consider them they're trying to prevent others from doing so.

• Holding onto views, beliefs, opinions, or narratives that would be challenged by black history, an examination of how racism shaped America, and so on.

• They're just grifting and are against CRT and CRT-adjacent things to get attention, followers, clicks, views, subscribers, and influence.

Critical Race Theory often gets lumped in with the term "cultural Marxism" and it being an example of "cultural Marxism" is justification enough for your average idiot Conservative to think it's bad. This is very similar to how the Nazis treated "cultural Bolshevism" as bad and a threat to culture and society as we know it.

The Nazis used the term "cultural Bolshevism" (Bolsheviks were a far-left Marxist faction) to demonstrate how the Bolsheviks tried to subvert German society with progressive art, lifestyle, and other things like Bauhaus architecture to eventually take over completely while simultaneously destroying the previous "way of life." Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Nazi Propaganda once said in a speech that Bolshevism was a "declaration of war" against "culture itself" and "is not only anti-bourgeois, it is anti-cultural. It means, in the final consequence, the absolute destruction of all economic, social, state, cultural, and civilizing advances made by western civilization for the benefit of a rootless and nomadic international clique of conspirators, who have found their representation in Jewry." This sounds so familiar to what today's Conservative idiots have to say about "cultural Marxism" with it destroying American culture, or Western civilization in general, or advocating for everything to be the same blah blah blah. These Conservatives borrow other rhetoric from the Nazis, as they claim that "cultural Marxism" is a threat to America and anything associated or influenced by it is a danger that should be banned similar to how Goebbels claimed that Bolshevism was a threat to the Nazi/European culture and did not allow anything "un-German" to be produced in media, even staging public book burnings. And much like the Nazis these conservatives kept it quite vague and difficult to follow who was doing this supposed subversion of culture and how they were doing it. Since Bolsheviks aren't really around anymore, Marxists became the new boogeyman that were trying to attack Western culture from the outside.

Hitler himself even wrote against Marxism in Mein Kampf:

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of ail recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet. If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men."

Hitler even goes as far as to say that if Marxism is victorious then the world will be destroyed, as will humanity. Again, sounds very familiar to what many Conservative idiots say about "cultural Marxism" today.

In another section of Mein Kampf Hitler describes Marxism as a "deadly poison" of ideas and writes that, "By the categorical rejection of the personality and hence of the nation and its racial content, it destroys the elementary foundations of all human culture which is dependent on just these factors." Cultural Marxism being poison, destroying culture, and rejecting personality and the nation, now here have we hear that recently? He goes on to say that "In the organized mass of Marxism he has found the weapon which lets him dispense with democracy and in its stead allows him to subjugate and govern the peoples with a dictatorial and brutal fist." "He" refers to a Jewish person. Hitler also describes Marxism as "the weapon of Jewry" which "descends like a nightmare on the mind and soul of decent people." According to Hitler the Jewish people "established the Marxist doctrine."

It is worth noting that much of the anti-Bolshevism sentiment the Nazi propaganda machine churned out was also anti-Semitic so it is possible that today's idiots that whine about "cultural Marxism" destroying society and culture the same way the Nazis did are using it as a dog whistle for anti-Semitism.

Basically, modern day Conservatives, like Nazis, use "cultural Marxism" as this boogeyman threat that will destroy, and actively is trying to destroy, culture and society and it is used as an excuse for why something is bad, should be banned, or shouldn't be tolerated despite there being no evidence of it at all.

In a move that isn't surprising considering how dumb Republicans are, the GOP controlled Oklahoma house voted to ban Critical Race Theory - literally banning an idea - from being taught. The Bill was signed by the governor, Republican Kevin Stitt.

Texas voted to do the same and passed a Bill in the senate that says no teacher is required to discuss current events or controversial issues related to public policy or current affairs. I guess these idiots don't want kids asking questions about the current world or being taught about it? As I say on another page on this website, questioning the world and the way in which one views the world is poison to the conservative brain and ideology. Apparently, the curriculum involving critical race theory would teach students "the history of white supremacy, including but not limited to the institution of slavery, the eugenics movement, and the Ku Klux Klan, and the ways in which it is morally wrong" according to a Texas news station. But people who oppose this want defense given to both sides so I guess they want children to be taught why slavery was good and moral along with why the KKK is good and moral and how whites are superior to all other races? The idea that all people are equal and racism is bad must be given the same respect and be treated just as morally as the idea that whites are the superior race and racism is good/okay in schools according to Republicans.

In Idaho, the Republican Republican Brad Little recently signed a Bill that bans what is defined as "tenets" of Critical Race Theory, despite giving no definition for CRT, from being in education and taught in schools. So anything someone doesn't like in Idaho can just be called Critical Race Theory and then kids will no longer be taught it. One of the Bill's supporters, Republican Wendy Horman, said "I want to see our public schools be a place where all people and all beliefs have a seat at the table" yet she's sponsoring this Bill which bans certain beliefs. She also contradicts herself because in the same article she is quoted as saying that this Bill prohibits ideas "compelling ‘students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to’ discriminatory beliefs or practices." I thought all beliefs had a seat at the table? Guess not.

In Florida, critical race theory is banned from state classrooms in a push led by Republican governor Ron DeSantis. He says it teaches kids to hate their country. Clearly, he has no idea what CRT is and I guess is assuming that children are just as fragile as he is and can't hear criticism of the country they live in. Very soon after this DeSantis would sign three more education focused bills to assess "viewpoint diversity" which I guess is Republican code for forced diversity. The description of the bill even says that "House Bill 233 requires state colleges and universities to conduct annual assessments of the viewpoint diversity and intellectual freedom at their institutions to ensure that Florida’s postsecondary students will be shown diverse ideas and opinions, including those that they may disagree with or find uncomfortable," so this literally is forced diversity. Also, it is pretty strange that the state is controlling what a private institution does. One of these bills also requires state university faculty and students to be surveyed about their beliefs and viewpoints. Apparently this is to ensure diversity (again, forced diversity) but it is basically state surveillance on people's thoughts and ideas. What happened to small government? I guess conservatives really hate losing in the marketplace of ideas and have to make laws so their stupidity stays relevant. Commenting on these bills he said "We obviously want our universities to be focused on critical thinking, academic rigor," and "It used to be thought that a university campus was a place where you'd be exposed to a lot of different ideas." He is quoted as saying “We don’t want that in Florida, you need to have a true contest of ideas, students should not be shielded from ideas and we want robust First Amendment speech on our college and university campuses," in another article. Weird comments from him considering he pushed for the banning of an idea he didn't like in schools, and succeeded. He also says that parents worry about children being "indoctrinated" but these bills make it so that civics curriculums must include the "evils" of communism. Seems as if that portion of the bill is indoctrination, no?

Alabama has also banned critical race theory, with the state's Republican governor expressing support for it on Twitter, saying the state won't teach children hate. Guess she doesn't know what CRT is or she thinks that just teaching children about racial inequality will make them hate each other? Shortly after the state board of educators voted on this ban, state officials began receiving complaints from parents that their children were being taught about Black History Month. It's pretty clear - certain people are genuinely so racist and/or caught up in this culture war nonsense that they don't want their children learning about black people in a positive or sympathetic light or about the wrongs and racism in America's history. One of the dudes who voted for the ban even had to explicitly state, "Having a Black History program is not CRT."

These idiots are really so fragile that they're trying to and succeeding in banning ideas - ideas regarding how America has not always treated everyone equally and ideas regarding racism in America and how it was bad. Conservatives don't want to acknowledge how shitty America was (and to an extent still is) to non white people I guess. They are so fragile that they can't handle schools teaching students about the bad things white people and white Americans did in the past. Yet they want statues and monuments of these bad people to stay up, implying that they're ok with this history being accessible but only in a way that positively portrays those bad white Americans. Republicans have gotten so fragile that they think schools teaching children bad things in America's past that were mostly done by white people is racist against white people. Black people have been enslaved, lynched, denied various human rights and constitutional rights and they complain about it Republicans scorn them. White people from the past get criticized and Republicans get triggered. Furthermore, these white Republicans who oppose CRT being taught in schools and think it will somehow cause racism against whites are telling on themselves: they look at past actions of other races and judge all members of that race by that today and assume everyone else will do so. Because they know black people have done a bad they hate today's black people and because they're unable to fathom that others could have a different mindset than them, they think anyone who learns of a past bad thing done by white people will then hate all white people today. "Education not indoctrination" is a popular phrase you'll see these folks express online or make into a sign, as seen below in Figure 1, so I guess they don't want children to be "indoctrinated" to believe that slavery and racism happened in America and both were bad? You'll also find a lot of people citing a quote attributed to John D Rockefeller about wanting workers rather than thinkers which is an incredible self own considering that's a Capitalist saying good citizens should be workers rather than thinkers and it is being used to oppose a type of education. This is seen below in Figures 2 and 3.

This fragility on the part of white conservatives is best exemplified by this quote from Republican school board campaign manager Mary Beeman: "Helping kids of color to feel they belong has a negative effect on white, Christian, or conservative kids." Yahoo and other outlets have also reported on this.

This aversion to teaching CRT, or really anything that deals with race in America and how it hasn't always treated minority groups the best, can be seen as an example of white privilege. White privilege is banning history lessons that might make white children feel bad while expecting Indigenous children to celebrate the man responsible for the rape, murder, and pillaging of their ancestors.

Conservatives seem to hate the marketplace of ideas because whenever their views are not present somewhere or represented in something they whine about censorship or something rather than taking responsibility for the fact that many of their views are dumb, stupid, outdated, or just flat out wrong and thus not relevant for those reasons. They'll even go as far as to make laws which require that their dumb, stupid, outdated, and wrong beliefs are taught and that students and teachers must be surveyed on their political beliefs as Ron DeSantis recently did in Florida. They'll argue that students need to be exposed to a variety of ideas or all information should be made available for them to make decisions on their own but then cry about progressive ideas like "there was racism in America" or "sex is maybe bimodal rather than binary" being in schools and call them indoctrination. You'll never hear conservatives use this same "all info should be made available" logic for anything else, you won't see them campaign for science teachers to give just as much credibility to the theory that the earth is flat as the fact that the earth is round or for schools to teach children that magic rocks and crystals are just a effective as medicine and medical treatment. It's always "They're teaching kids racism is bad? Then they also need to teach them why racism is good so the kids can make up their own minds." Conservatives must make laws that ban ideas they don't like, such as Critical Race Theory, require the teaching of their own dumb ideas, and monitor the beliefs of students and teachers for conservatism to remain relevant.

A lot of Conservative idiots will, intentionally or not, avoid actual Critical Race Theory scholars and instead focus on people whose ideas are weirder, more out there, and easy to point at and call stupid. Here is a list of people whose work I commonly see used as examples of CRT but who are not actual CRT scholars.

• Robin DiAngelo: Works in the field of critical discourse analysis and whiteness studies. An NPR piece about racism identifies this and the Library of Congress does not tie her to any "critical race theory" sources as it does for Richard Delgado, the co-author of the 2001 Critical Race Theory book.

• Ibram Kendi: Works as a professor of African-American studies and is an author, as the Library of Congress identifies. An article from The Undefeated identifies him as one of the nation's leading scholars on racism and does not mention Critical Race Theory at all. A Washington Post Magazine story about him also has no mention of CRT.