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: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday May 25 2021, @06:36AM (1 child)
No, you are an idiot.
Nietzsche, like Gandhi, held that non-violence is the highest form of bravery. Republicans are so afraid of a Theory, that they cringe in fear over being called racist, mostly because they know in their hearts it is true. Untermenchen, all.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 25 2021, @08:30AM
It is quite likely that you are correct about that idiot thing. Still I feel like you have mistaken my premise, and misunderstood my position (Hint: I am not a Republican). To be quite explicit.
In the Civil war, the North was there to crush the South and cry for an end to slavery.
In WWII the Allies were there to crush the Axis and cry for an ending of the "master race" ideology.
In this day CRT is there to war against any last vestiges/adherents to racist ideologies and cry for the end of racism.
Each of these cases features opposition of an oppressive "social construct" if you will. Each opposition temporarily requires that the victor engage in oppression to achieve his victory. The end result is that the oppression of the victor is withdrawn that freedom might be given a chance to work.
So I tried encapsulating all of that into the single phrase. I guess it was expecting too much.
Now there are several subtle points I was aiming to highlight with that sentence.
The first is that CRT is an oppressive movement which seeks annihilation of racism. It is a necessary opposition to a vile practice which tends to fester if left unchecked. Yet, while necessary, it is wrong since it is not promoting liberty. So like any war effort, it is simultaneously necessary and wrong, and the only hope that any of us has it that it might be quickly victorious, so that freedom might be restored.
The second is that CRT by its very mission statement is racially biased, since the only way to discover entrenched systemic racism is to see the world through the lens of "race" as defined (or socially constructed) by others. This leads to tiresome complaints of it detractors that it is in essence racist. The truth of the matter is quite simply that it is anti-racist, but the detractors cannot understand the difference, having not been lynched nearly as often as others have. So this becomes a pointless unwinnable argument - as evidenced by most of the postings in this journal entry.
The third subtlety is hidden in the "strongest of the strong" phrasing. Slave-owners thought they were doing slaves a favor by giving them work and providing for them. Nazi's thought that they were doing the world a favor by putting the master-race back in charge of the continent of Europe. People who are unconsciously racist think - no rather they "feel" - that the world is better off with beneficent white European-type folks running everything and so they unconsciously make that happen. The common feature in these groups is a blind spot in their self-introspection and an innabililty to see with the eyes of the ones that are oppressed in the deal. This is why they will never be the strongest of the strong, and they will ultimately always be defeated.
Anyway, it is late and I don't have time to go into the other subtleties I was pointing out in the original post. I've been lobbying against racism for fifty years now, and I've heard all the same lame arguments over and over from the folks who do not admit their unconscious bias - and we all are tainted by it - be it the horror of King Kong going after that white girl, or the idiocy of Jar Jar Binks who screwed up everything he ever tried to do. I was _not_ trying to start any arguments. I was trying to condense my fifty years of effort into a few pithy statements that those truly concerned about this issue might do well to reflect on. If you cannot see the truth in those few lines, then you will not likely see the truth in the thousands I might employ to explain what I meant.
--
See, Hemo, I told you nobody understood me.