-->
@Fruit_Inspector
-->@oromagi
As the Atlantic Monthly article demonstrated, CRT did not exist in the American conversation until Fox News put it there last summer. FOX News is the origin point for your misconceptions about CRT, whether or not you know it.Again, this assertion of yours is both baseless and untrue. I have been studying CRT for the past few years. I can't put an exact date on when it popped up on my radar, but it was well before last summer. If Fox News did not start talking about before last summer, then it cannot possibly be the source of my "misconceptions" about CRT.
If you'd been studying this rather idiosyncratic branch of legal scholarship for years, one would think you'd have a better grasp of definition. Still, I have no evidence upon which to believe or disbelieve you. I just know that the evidence is that, generally speaking, nobody gave a shit about CRT until Tucker Carlson told FOX News viewers to.
Here's google trending for the term Critical Race Theory over the past 5 years showing that so few people googled CRT before Sept 2020 that google registers ZERO interest over all of those years- that is, not enough interest to generate any data.
Then, as The New Republic documents:
Last September, an obscure, 36-year-old documentarian named Christopher Rufo landed a slot on Tucker Carlson Tonight. Knowing the president would be watching, he sounded the alarm about an ideology almost as obscure as he was: “critical race theory.” Rufo, who describes the theory as the notion that the United States was “founded on white supremacy and oppression,” begged Donald Trump to take action. Critical race theory, he warned, had become “the default ideology of the federal bureaucracy.” The next morning, Rufo got a call from Mark Meadows, the president’s chief of staff; just a few days later, the White House issued a bizarre memo instructing public agencies to root out the theory from government trainings.
In the months since Rufo’s TV appearance, roughly a dozen states from Idaho to Tennessee have passed or considered legislation banning critical race theory from schools and government institutions. Almost overnight, Rufo has become the standard-bearer for a hysterical movement to solve a problem that may not even exist—and in the process, charted a course for the right in the Biden era. With a likable moderate in the White House, the task for operatives like Rufo is to gin up evidence of an overwhelming conspiracy everywhere else, convincing voters that the left has taken over the school and the workplace.
Before Tucker, CRT was almost exclusively a topic for liberal law schools and HBCU's. Tucker introduces the theory as mandatory anti-white racism more dangerous to the nation's safety than nuclear weapons and six days later Trump is passing laws against it. FOX likes that result so much they begin substituting the obscure, undefined term CRT wherever any objection to racism arises. By late June of this year, the Washington Post claims more than 2000 FOX News mentions of CRT over the first six months of the year while Media Matter for America documents 1300 of those mentions in just the prior three and half months or 84 times each week. Russia Times, Newsmax, OAN join in, but none of it a about law and legal theory- almost all of the coverage is just a euphemism about anti-racism as in "teaching dangerous CRT theories in the classroom" instead of "teaching equality and civil rights in the classroom."
That may be your argument. And I am simply making the point that you don't have to teach the theory of CRT in order to train children to see the world as defined by CRT.
The claim that CRT makes any attempt to define the world is pure falsehood. You are inventing a fictional worldview and falsely labeling it CRT.
And it is this critical praxis that is the cause for many parents pulling their kids out of school. While they may not articulate it clearly, that is a good reason.
Nope. No K-12 schoolchildren are learning "critical praxis." They can't articulate it because it is not there.
Objections to raising a child's awareness on most any subject is a poor reason to pull your kids out of school.
At face value, this statement might have some merit.
But when "raising awareness/consciousness" means training children to see oppression of non-whites by whites in pretty much everything, with the goal of tearing down the alleged systems of oppression, then your statement doesn't seem so innocent.
Bullshit. We are talking about public schools generally, where 4 out of every 5 teachers are non-Hispanic White. 78% of school board members are White. While I am sure you can find some kooky teacher somewhere preaching universal oppression by the whites- I refuse to believe that public schools are generally teaching that all minorities are oppressed in everything they do and that the American establishment must go. Trumpists think that way but in public schools, I think the opposite is true- that minority kids more often get a distorted view about racial oppression at home and get a more balanced and empowered and pro-establishment viewpoint at school.
I think you are way out of touch with the reality of public schools.
Raising children's consciousness about racism is a necessary part of American learning. I don't know how you teach American history, society, literature, etc. without raising consciousness about racism in America.There is the game. You are misusing the term racism in order to insert your foreign definition into the conversation.
Nonsense. I'll rely on Mirriam-Webster:
RACISM [noun]
1: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a: the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
2b: a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles
Please explain how Mirriam-Webster's definition of racism seems "foreign" to your and how your definition of racism differs.
I have no objection to teaching (high school) children how to identify the means of oppression and how to non-violently dismantle those mean.Is the Constitution a system of oppression?
No. I learned in public schools that the US Constitution only empowers the US Govt in very limited ways, that the Bill of Rights is all constraints on the Government and not on the people.... Are you saying that this is no longer taught in public schools?
Trump and Republicans are the ones who view the Constitution as an instrument of oppression to the extent that it forbids the Trump dictatorship Republicans now actively and almost exclusively seek. Even so, I doubt even pro-Trump educators are teaching kids to tear up the Constitution.
I could not have been more clear on this, I don't know why you are pretending otherwise. I said:"....you are mis-characterizing anti-racist speech as CRT.""Anti-racist" as defined by who?
Since we used Mirriam-Webster to define racism, let's stick with that.
anti-racist
variants: or ANTI-RACISM
Definition of anti-racist
: opposed to RACISM
