Personally I think “racial essentialism” is the better term to use but I’m not up in arms about it. I don’t think you disagree with the terminology so much as you believe that the concepts people are objecting to should be taught. Why not just say that instead of going for the easy dunk
I go for the easy dunk because that’s what they’re giving me to work with. It’s not my job to make it harder on myself to make my point.
If we changed to debate from CRT to racial essentialism it would highlight how absurd this is as a political issue, because what we’re talking about now is a mindset not a curriculum or anything else that can actually be legislated. No governor can ban it, and if you’re that intolerant of other people having different view points on race that you have to run out and vote for a governor over it that says something about you.
So yes I agree with you, and that’s exactly my point. The terminology is used to muddy the issue because the arguments cannot stand on their own merit. It’s disingenuous.
That’s always been taught in schools though… The modern day impact of racism is a more controversial issue and I wouldn’t blame parents for objecting to a certain theory of it being taught as fact.
You’re saying two opposite things at the same time. The former is not CRT, the latter is. And I don’t object to it either. CRT is not a K-12 subject, which is why it’s not part of the curriculum.
Also isn’t it fucked up how “whiteness” is a term of invective among these woke academics? Imagine if I were criticizing the high rate of single motherhood in black communities and called that “blackness”….talk about dehumanizing racial essentialism
Agreed, which is why I have a problem with the term as well. But dehumanizing black people is nothing new in America, so spare a thought what it is like for a black person to look around at what is going on right now as they watch the national freak out over the fact that white people are suddenly being called names too.
