Forgive the irrelevancies and the digressions, here is as much of the original journal as I could recover. Plus some interesting things about the Indian Nations.
Why the GOP-fueled 'controversy' over critical race theory, nothing to do with critical race theory
Yes, that was the original full title. Might have been clipped.
Reported at The Editorial Board
The right-wing media apparatus, which is global in scale, has lately been making a fetish of something called “critical race theory” (CRT). This has prompted academics to defend it. It’s not a radical political ideology, they say. It’s merely a form of critical inquiry. It is not the boogeyman it’s being made out to be. There’s nothing to fear.
I understand the need to defend critical race theory. Colleges and universities are beset on one hand by Republican fascists accusing scholars of indoctrinating students, on the other by anti-left liberals accusing the same of hostility toward freedom of speech. Meanwhile, administrations act more like corporations that privilege efficiency over research and teaching. It’s enough to think CRT is an appropriate hill to die on.
Yes, this is an opinion piece. That does not necessarily entail that it is not news to most Soylentils. And, the important piece:
Explaining CRT’s particulars to people who seem to fear them won’t change their minds if you don’t also take into account that explaining them can be seen as intolerable aggression.
Put it in the same category as "cultural Marxism", Feminazism, and Woke-ness. Operant conditioning, not intellectual discussion.
This, however, overlooks the larger dynamic at work. The more you defend CRT as an ideologically neutral mode of seeing and thinking about the world, the more the propagandists are going to do what they do best, which is terrifying the ignorant. More importantly, CRT defenders are not seeing the true nature of their opponents. From the authoritarian perspective, modes of seeing and thinking about the world are never ideologically neutral because once you learn to see and think about the world on your own, you don’t need authoritarian leaders to tell you what to see and think.
I risk making them seem like cartoons. I risk making people who treasure “traditional” and “conservative” and “Judeo-Christian” values look like they yippy-skippied over the Enlightenment on their way from the Spanish Inquisition to the 21st-century America. But it’s worth the risk given that most respectable white people, in my opinion, tend to overestimate the societal effects of liberal arts education. Critical thinking is so uncontroversial among respectable white people as to be barely worth mentioning. The authoritarians, however, see it quite clearly for what it is—an existential threat.
This is why the particulars of critical race theory don’t matter.1 (You don’t care about the particulars when you’re fighting for survival!) This is also why explaining those particulars to people who seem to fear them won’t change their minds if you don’t also take into account that explaining the particulars of critical race theory can itself be seen as intolerable aggression. What most of them fear is loss of social control. What most fear is loss of authority. Where you see an individual merely muddling through life the best she can, coming to the best conclusions she can, most of them see an individual whose ideological aggression is so monstrous as to justify any response.
Always wondered by the alt- and elder-right brought this up at the strangest of points in a discussion.
Respectable white people look at the right-wing media apparatus, which is global in scale, and marvel at the fact that Americans consuming its propaganda inhabit a fact-free world. I think what they misunderstand is lying isn’t a bug. It’s a feature. Facts are available to individuals to see and think about on their own, free and independent of authorities licensed to say what individuals see and think. Facts, therefore, are aligned politically with perceived enemies. A rational response to facts is nonstop lying. So “alternate facts” are not a result of authoritarian politics. They are a first principle.
Critical race theory is not a political ideology, but it may as well be to the world of the right-wing media apparatus, which is global in scale. It might as well be because anything that teaches individuals to see and think about facts independent and free of groupthink compromises the integrity of the authoritarian’s grip on the group. Case in point is Wyoming Congresswoman Liz Cheney. The Republican believes the former president tried bringing down the republic. She is factually correct. For the “crime” of seeing and thinking about the world on her own, she’s now being punished. The House Republicans are poised to purge her from the House conference leadership. The Republicans are not individualists. They are collectivists enforcing groupthink.
Who's doing the de-platforming, now?
Other sources:
The GOP’s ‘Critical Race Theory’ Obsession (MSN)
The GOP’s ‘Critical Race Theory’ Obsession (The Atlantic)
Why 'woke' and 'critical race theory' are the GOP's new favorite words (MSNBC)
GOP Looks to Ban ‘Woke Philosophies’ Like Critical Race Theory in Texas Schools (Yahoo)
The GOP’s bizarre obsession with ‘critical race theory’ has almost nothing to do with critical race theory (DroolingDog)
Oklahoma governor signs ban on teaching critical race theory (Madison)
Texas GOP Passes Bill to Ban Critical Race Theory, Stop 'Blaming White Children' for Slavery
Republicans seize on conservative backlash against critical race theory
Freeze Peaches, indeed!
Previously on Critical Race Matters: Who’s afraid of ‘Critical Race Theory’? Jews should embrace the right’s latest bogeyman (Forward.com)
******
There was an update, before the Deluge, something about Oklahoma, where the right-wing nut-jobs were sweeping down the Planes before the Centennial of the Tulsa Race Massacre.
100 years after the Tulsa Race Massacre, last living survivors urge America to not forget, of course. But the Governator of OK signed a law about teaching the Dread Critical Race Theory, and got hisself kicked off the board of the Centennial observance, and was rebuked by the Oklahoma City School board in no uncertain terms.
Oklahoma governor Kevin Stitt, a Republican, was removed from the commission overseeing the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa Race Massacre on Friday after he signed a bill banning critical race theory in the state’s schools.
So sad, it was such a non-racist feather in his cap.
And, this is popping up everywhere, more than Hunter Biden's laptop, or Seth's assassination, or the pimple on Sean Hannity's left cheek. Seriously. Donald Trump allegedly said there were good people on both sides of the Tulsa Massacre.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Monday May 24 2021, @04:29AM
Or perhaps, the unexamined life is not worth living? If you're not examining those "fundamental truths", then you are not examining your life.
And yet we know that men are not created equal in many ways, such as ability or opportunity. And you have to go a long ways back to get to common ancestors for most people - with many of the commonalities being people of remarkable brutality (like Genghis Khan for a recent example).
The real answer is hell, no. We can do better than to ask pointless questions like that.
For example, suppose you are a really, really outspoken person who goes out of their way to meet and have significant interactions with as many people as possible. My take is that you're not going to do better than say 100 people per day and that would need to be in group interactions like parties, groups of people at meals, perhaps documentaries, and so on. For normal people, they probably would be one to ten new people a day on average. If the supergregarious person so meets 100 new people per day, that's ~36.5k per year and would be ~3.65 million over a century of life. So in this extreme scenario, you've met less than four million people, that's almost half a percent of the world's population.
So how are you going to love the 99.5% you will never meet and never know? You merely describe nebulous feelings about statistics.
A far better approach is to construct a world where even the self absorbed and advantaged are encouraged to positively contribute. That's where stuff like capitalism comes from BTW. It encourages even the wicked and selfish to help others.
Instead, I find the people who complain about human nature ignore outright how we are making everyone's lives better, right now. My take is that it's more righteous to consider how to make the present, self-interested human being a better part of our world than to pine for the perfect human who doesn't have our flaws and for which, we don't have even the slightest inkling how to consistently create.