CRT Breaks Everything

A simple definition might be the examination of societal structures in order to identify racism embedded within them. While a simple definition like this might seem harmless, the underlying presuppositions are what make it relevant to the article. One of these presuppositions is that systemic racism exists - that is assumed to be true. It also exists throughout all aspects of society, and was intentionally structured into that society by the oppressor class in order to benefit them at the expense of others.

The author makes the case that humans first arose in Africa with dark skin, and they are the foundation of art, culture, etc. To deny evolution is to take credit away from these dark-skinned ancestors for their accomplishments, making one guilty of racism. This is why the author can get away with essentially calling all creationists a bunch of evangelical KKK-loving white supremacists. The argumentation is terrible and the article has no business in a publication like Scientific American.

How an individual chooses to interpret something, can be the racist element, I'd say.

or instance a racist 'could claim,

"Humans evolved from monkeys into humans, then spread from Africa to the rest of the world, and evolved further, clearly blacks are closer to monkeys than the rest of humans."

If an individual is determined to justify some claim, or perspective.

Words, can be constructed a variety of ways.

Also, no reason creationists couldn't claim the Garden of Eden was in Africa.

Isn't that statement considered to be a general fact from the evolutionary worldview, regardless of whether it is intended to be racist?

I'm doubtful.

Just seemed an offensive thing to say, but use limited logic and justification for.

But, the statement again,

. . .

Maybe it's the distance we've traveled in 'generations, that matters more, than the distance we've traveled in land.

We've 'all traveled generations, experienced the survival of the fittest in relation to imagination, advanced cognition, or whatever element it was that separates us from our evolutionary forebears, if one goes with the theory of evolution.

If a person believes in evolution, I imagine that variable, more than snow, that's shaped humans 'all.

Though sure, white skin vitamin D, healthy fat Inuits, Sickle cells in people living near malaria, Neanderthal DNA, still all exist.

But again, perhaps it's the 'generations traveled, weeded by the survival of the fittest in relation to imagination, advanced cognition, or whatever element it was that separates us from our evolutionary forebears, if one goes with the theory of evolution.

Rather than land distance traveled.

I've never studied genetics.

Or evolution, I don't know why humans couldn't have evolved on multiple continents at once, or traveled on different continents 'during evolution, or a continent 'before Africa.

It seems the author of the article would actually agree with your original statement about dark-skinned Africans being the closest to monkeys:

But I know that's not necessarily the main point you were making so I will shift the focus back to that. Racism has traditionally been understood to be the thoughts and actions of individuals that consider one race to be superior to another. The key point being that racism is carried out by an individual.

However, in CRT, racism is a structural evil. One author calls it racism without racists. Merriam-Webster even updated their definition, showing that the traditional understanding was distinct enough from what people call racism today to require a new definition.

So when you said that how an individual interprets something is the racist factor, that is true if you hold to the traditional understanding of racism. But if you hold to the new understanding (i.e. that racism is systemic), then you simply need to find some perceived disparity to "prove" that racism exists. In the article, it is the failure to acknowledge our dark-skinned ancestors in the evolutionary timeline. And since this is a form of systemic racism, those who take part in furthering this disparity can be called white supremacists, even if they don't believe whites are superior to blacks.

Fair point, though certain laws and policies, 'have existed in history, which we'd call racist. By their explicitly.

Though they are obvious, and 'intentioned to single out groups.

If one defines racism as differences of statistics between groups.

Then I have trouble going along with that as a definition.

It also just becomes a headache, classifying every single human characteristic into groups, are redheads represented equally, blondes, tall people, short people, people with big noses, people with small noses, people with 'this combination of traits, 'that people with 'that combination of traits.

I 'really don't care at a certain point.

And end up finding the fixation upon equal outcome, irritating.

(Edit)

Though on the other hand, I'm not bothered, if the public schools teacher spends more time with the poor kid, if they know their parents won't help them any in homework.

I 'would be bothered if the school expected me to 'pay more, to help the poor kid.

Though 'voluntarily helping them, would not bother me so.

I'm also bothered by some people's 'focus on race, I wouldn't be so bothered if they just wanted to help the people in society who needed it.

But I'm bothered, they want my money without asking, to do so.

I think most people would agree that there have been laws and policies in US history that have been racist. I think slavery is a serious blemish on American history. However, I think we can also see that there are no current laws or policies that are racist, and that we go out of our way to ensure that racism is not carried out in such a way.

If you do not agree with defining racism as statistical disparities between racial groups, then you will definitely not like CRT. In fact, the disparities are what is used to justify actual racism against whites (and in some cases Asians). For instance, if you can show that white people have a higher median income than black people, that is "proof" that racism exists, even if no cause can be linked to discriminatory practices. And if this disparity is defined as racism, one would be justified to pay black people more than white people in order to "undo" the systemic racism being carried out against black people. In other words, CRT justifies traditional racism (prejudiced treatment based on race) if it is being used to fight systemic racism (disparities between races).

And it is this worldview that allows an author to publish in article in Scientific American stating that denying evolution is a form of white supremacy, using awful argumentation and ad hominem attacks upon anyone who disagrees.

To state that denying evolution is a form of white supremacy, 'is rather silly.

I'm 'still unsure what the definition of CRT, as everyone keeps giving different answers.

I'll admit that certain characteristics in individuals, can cause different action in response to other people.

Tall people are often CEOs I've read.

'Maybe blacks 'are stopped by police more, for no reason 'except their skin color.

Certainly a white kid growing up in the ghetto, seems likely to get popped in the mouth, for using the N word.

Still,

I'm 'pretty sure, Americans are no longer of the position,

That blacks are second class citizens in America.

That women can't vote.

This video shows Voddie Baucham explaining CRT simply and clearly using the most authoritative sources from Critical Theorists themselves. He's done post-graduate studies at Oxford and seeks to accurately represents CRT in their own words. It's just under 5 minutes and very helpful if you're interested.

https://youtu.be/zPpVTEZ7z3A

I have noted before in other topics that I personally find no distinction between creationism and evolution, and I'm pretty certain that is a relatively rare view for this site. Most of you definitively come down on one side or the other, never considering that they might be co-equal processes. Someone can explain why they cannot both be operative. What, because God wouldn't think of allowing adaptation? Darwin certainly allowed for it, and he'd never heard of DNA. It is, by the way, for environmental basket-cases, the way we resolve climate change, as well - we adapt [evolve, for purists]. Oh, I'm all for cleaning our environment, but the idea that if temperature rises another 2 degrees, and we're toast, is just a bit silly. Hint: don't use butter on a sunburn.

My main contention with evolution is a theological one. Though I think there is sufficient scientific evidence to reject it as well. I don't intend to get into a debate here since that is not the purpose of this thread. But in case you want to comment on this, my main argument is that if God created the world as good, death and disease would not have been part of it.

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" - Romans 5:12

If death is the penalty for sin, and sin came through Adam, then death could not have been present prior to Adam. Evolution requires death in order for humans to come about. That would mean death did not come through Adam's sin, but it was a part of God's good creation.

Africans are not closer to apes than white people. its a stereotype and was used to justify slavery and segregation.

If, as the author of the article states, the earliest ancestors to humans were dark-skinned Africans, then how is it false to say that dark-skinned Africans are the closest human descendants to monkeys?

lol thats not how evolution works. Africans are black because there's more melanin in their skin then they started spreading out and the melanin came out and people were white that didn't make any more closer or further from monkeys. Also humans are not descended from monkeys they have a common ancestor.

Also please provide sources if your only evidence is because they are black then you don't have evidence

I cited the article from my original post because that's what this thread is about. The author is stating that it is a form of white supremacy to reject the notion that the first humans were dark-skinned Africans.

Im aware of that but you don't have any evidence as to black people being less evolved. Again if your only evidence is cause they are black you don't have evidence.

I have no need to make that argument because I do not believe that evolution adequately explains the diversity of life. Nor is proving the skin color of our supposed ancestors according to a theory I reject particularly relevant to the point of this thread.

The reason I cited the article is because I believe it shows how the prevalence of CRT allowed such bad argumentation to be published in Scientific American. And since you disagree with the idea that our earliest human ancestors were dark-skinned, it seems you might agree with me that it is bad argumentation. But it seems you might also be labeled by the author as a white supremacists for denying the achievements of our supposed dark-skinned ancestors.

Sure - doesn't mean that he wrote it down though - you are asserting that it was declared, stated, etc-  he merely implied it - actually no - in the paper itself it wasn't implied - you were primed, hahahha! Oh my god this is fucking amazing, you don't even realize it, you were actually convinced by that article and you don't even realize it? HAhahahaha!!

And yup - they do - cuz those who lie to perpetuate their own agenda, with no greater good, just for their own sake - trash - that's my opinion on the matter. 

I do not disagree our ancestors were dark skinned that's a fact. That doesn't prove black people are closer to apes at all.

Eh, theory.

Implying that black people are closer to apes is clearly racist if you don't see that your dumb

I think she was refering to this "But it seems you might also be labeled by the author as a white supremacists for denying the achievements of our supposed dark-skinned ancestors."

*he

Truthfully, I'm not sure quite 'what post #51, is saying.

But doesn't matter, if they feel need, they'll elaborate.

Did you just assume the author was a man? Uh oh...

And you'll have to explain what is apparently so funny.

No one has a clue if Adam or Eve actually existed, let alone what they looked like.

Though one would assume,  that they would actually have been fairly swarthy  and hairy in appearance.

Stylised images are what they are.

And we all descended from goo, and what colour that was I don't know....Perhaps it was green. 

And CRT is usually expounded by critical racists.

Or are we discussing Cathode Ray Tubes.