Critical race theory

[aelf]

It's funny how the boomers didn't get it.

 

[Estebonrober]

The labels are fine but when labels get watered down they lose power.

If someone actively discriminates the labels are fine. If someone makes an assumption that a person their friend is discussing who's a computer engineer is male (or a babysitter is female) to label them some kind of implicit sexist is dumb (unless they respond w "chicks can't be into computers" or "who would trust a teenage boy to watch a kid"

You're not racist for having a knee jerk inappropriate thought anymore than you're violent for having an angry one now & then.

Exactly. That doesn’t stop the implicit bias from having dramatic social effects over time. Clearly it is still relevant in economic and political spheres.

 

[El_Machinae]

Regardless, CRT was not necessary to understand this problem, or to fix it. The same conclusions can be reached with an open mind and some basic understanding of sociology and testing.

That's true. But then we'd have to name the umbrella under which we did that testing about 'things that seem obvious in retrospect', right? You'd need a TLA* to refer to a body of work that was both related or tried-to-be-related.

*Three Letter Acronym

 

[eyrei]

That's true. But then we'd have to name the umbrella under which we did that testing about 'things that seem obvious in retrospect', right? You'd need a TLA* to refer to a body of work that was both related or tried-to-be-related.

*Three Letter Acronym

The problem now is, common sense solutions to some of these problems are begin lumped in with a theory/model that does not hold up under scrutiny, which endangers progress that was made in those areas.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It's funny how the boomers didn't get it.

I don't need to get it. I just make do the best I can. The world is yours; I'm on "coast" for a few more years and then I'll die.

 

[aelf]

A few more years of not understanding irony?

 

[GenMarshall]

Do you know about how, years ago, the makers of the SAT questions realized that some of those questions presupposed life experience more common for white people than for African Americans? Something like "Marathon is to runner as Regatta is to ___________." And it's not that black kids don't know how to the logic of such a question; it's just that they don't know what a regatta is.

I see it as more of a class issue than a race issue. I’m white and I don’t even know what a Regatta is. I had to look up what “Regatta” is to learn that it’s a series of boating and or yacht race. A white affluent person, especially if they’re into yacht racing, would know more about Regattas than a non-affluent person of any race.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

"chicks can't be into computers"

I've been on the receiving end of comments very similar to that on this very forum: "You can't be a girl. Girls don't play Civ." Attitudes like that are why some female members of this forum are not inclined to mention that they're female (I recall one such PM exchange with one of them during my time as a moderator and there was an incident of sexism in one of the Civ forums).

I learned Civ from other people in the Society for Creative Anachronism. One of the people who taught me about Civ I was a woman. That person's mother - 20 years older than me - taught me about Civ II (I had an Amiga for Civ I and she had a different computer and it was a bit of a learning curve for me until I got my own).

Unless I've also misunderstood Schlau's post, he is parodying Narz's post, not claiming that palaeontology is bunk.

That's not how it came across, honestly.

I will admit that I'm a bit defensive of this particular branch of science at the moment, since our new draft K-6 curriculum - devised by a group of people who are not only not teachers, but not even Canadian, and chosen for their right-wing, faith-based views - deleted dinosaurs from the science curriculum and added material about religion that doesn't even pretend to be neutral... and this stuff is supposed to be taught in public schools.

The Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology is a fantastic place for class field trips at any grade. My second trip there was in college, with a class of physical geography students. It's a damn shame that if the (w)itch that is our current Minister of Education gets her way, kids won't be learning any of this material.

 

[eyrei]

I've been on the receiving end of comments very similar to that on this very forum: "You can't be a girl. Girls don't play Civ." Attitudes like that are why some female members of this forum are not inclined to mention that they're female (I recall one such PM exchange with one of them during my time as a moderator and there was an incident of sexism in one of the Civ forums).

I learned Civ from other people in the Society for Creative Anachronism. One of the people who taught me about Civ I was a woman. That person's mother - 20 years older than me - taught me about Civ II (I had an Amiga for Civ I and she had a different computer and it was a bit of a learning curve for me until I got my own).


That's not how it came across, honestly.

I will admit that I'm a bit defensive of this particular branch of science at the moment, since our new draft K-6 curriculum - devised by a group of people who are not only not teachers, but not even Canadian, and chosen for their right-wing, faith-based views - deleted dinosaurs from the science curriculum and added material about religion that doesn't even pretend to be neutral... and this stuff is supposed to be taught in public schools.

The Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology is a fantastic place for class field trips at any grade. My second trip there was in college, with a class of physical geography students. It's a damn shame that if the (w)itch that is our current Minister of Education gets her way, kids won't be learning any of this material.

One of the reasons those types of people have power is that we give them openings when we take things like CRT too seriously. Its basically a backlash against any perceived enemy of their chosen way of life, which in this case is science/dinosaurs, but in many other cases is people that don't look like them. If we are careful to mitigate our own overreach, we essentially take the wind out of their sails.

 

[Birdjaguar]

A few more years of not understanding irony?

A few unadorned words in English are not always clear as to their intent or meaning. That is part of the richness of English as a language. Should I take your eight simple words as straight forward? Or is there something mocking in the thoughts behind them? Should you get the benefit of the doubt or should I assume you think you are clever or witty in how you can "Stick it to a boomer"? Your context is not my context and the link is merely the words we use. I, at least, am not above recognizing my errors, as seen in my edited post.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I am aware of the issues with standardized testing, though, I find it interesting that I have absolutely no idea what a Regatta is either, as a white male...with a degree in English. IIRC, those type of questions are on the 'verbal' part of the test, which is testing vocabulary as well as reading comprehension and logic. Not knowing what a Regatta is, I simply don't deserve to answer that question correctly regardless of my race or sex.

That said, I do agree the SAT has had issues such as you describe that advantaged affluent students, which tend to be white...that was just maybe not a good example.

Regardless, CRT was not necessary to understand this problem, or to fix it. The same conclusions can be reached with an open mind and some basic understanding of sociology and testing.

I'll layer class into things in a moment, in ways that you and GenMarshall already started to do.

First notice that something like this will tend to advantage white students and disadvantage black students--but without any intention to do so. The white deviser of the question just thought he was creating a logic puzzle. The slightly higher number of white students who get it right don't know that they are getting any advantage. The slightly higher number of black students who get it wrong don't realize that they are getting a disadvantage.

This is what CRT means when they speak of "systemic" racism. It's just in the system. The white test deviser drew on his advantaged life experience and that created conditions where whites were slightly advantaged.

CRT calls this "racism" which I think is a bit of a mistake on its part, but do you see that it's "advantaging to one race" based simply on the levels of advantage that already exist?

 

[schlaufuchs]

EDIT: If this is the case then

Haha, gottem!

But yes, to be clear: I'm pointing out the contradiction in Narz's statement that social sciences are unscientific because the theories seem to change all the time. For it is precisely this iterative replacement of old theories as new truths are discovered that gives any scientific discipline its epistemic validity. So merely pointing out that some theory has replaced older theories of sociological knowledge doesn't strike me as a particularly compelling rationale through which to critique that theory's validity, unless you also want to toss out every other scientific discipline's findings.

 

[Lexicus]

Wikipedia...

C'mon, you have a liberal arts degree. Go find the source that wikipedia used and present that like you would have to in class.

Its going to be a hard sell to convince people that it isn't biological until we actually encounter aliens...

Wait, so you believe that race is a biological reality? I want to be very clear on this before proceeding...if you believe race is biology we are not ready to learn about CRT. You need to learn some biology first.

That's not how it came across, honestly.

That's how it came across to me. Pretty obvious in fact.

 

[aelf]

Your context is not my context

Clearly. That's the whole point.

 

[Narz]

The word 'implicit' should be used, definitely. In your example, the person is definitely implicitly sexist.

I don't think it's necessarily sexist to jump to assumptions (if someone is describing a dental assistant, that that person is female). Assumptions as mental shortcuts aren't going anywhere, as long as they don't contain mean-spirited character judgements I don't see a big problem (as a human collective we have bigger fish to fry than worrying about people's assumptions of each other, such as whether our grandchildren will have any fish to fry).

 

[eyrei]

C'mon, you have a liberal arts degree. Go find the source that wikipedia used and present that like you would have to in class.



Wait, so you believe that race is a biological reality? I want to be very clear on this before proceeding...if you believe race is biology we are not ready to learn about CRT. You need to learn some biology first.



That's how it came across to me. Pretty obvious in fact.

I've presented numerous arguments and evidence. You have done nothing except tell me to read stuff...like 5 times now.

Race is absolutely biological. Not even sure how to think of it otherwise. Genetics provide human uniqueness, but they also provide similarities that we refer to as race.

So, in a way you are correct, I'm not ready to accept CRT...not because I'm stupid, but because it doesn't add up and requires I engage in cognitive dissonance. I prefer to leave that 'skill' to GOPers...

 

[Narz]

Haha, gottem!

But yes, to be clear: I'm pointing out the contradiction in Narz's statement that social sciences are unscientific because the theories seem to change all the time. For it is precisely this iterative replacement of old theories as new truths are discovered that gives any scientific discipline its epistemic validity. So merely pointing out that some theory has replaced older theories of sociological knowledge doesn't strike me as a particularly compelling rationale through which to critique that theory's validity, unless you also want to toss out every other scientific discipline's findings.

You're still trying to compare real science to critical race theory?

You're gonna tell me mathematically how racist I am?

Give it a rest.

Nothing wrong w theories changing all the time if new evidence comes out. But this type of race theory stuff is not based on evidence. They try to dress it up as semi-scientific w these absurd fmri studies but to say flashing an image in a MRI machine in a lab gives any prarical insight into how human beings treat each in real life is idiotic (especially when as soon as there was any conscious awareness of the image the effect disappeared).

The more you argue the most embarrassing it is.

 

[El_Machinae]

Race is absolutely biological

This will get you in trouble if you dig in your heels. You're both correct and missing the point.

Okay, everything related to humanity is fundamentally biological. But that's going to be missing the point regarding whether something is also a social construct.
Like, no one is denying that 'race' draws upon physical characteristics or that physical characteristics are determined by biology. But 'race' is also a social construct. We easily know this, because people will insist upon classifying race on appearances rather than genetic distinctiveness.

We could have African tribes that are more genetically distinct than any European culture, and the "no blacks allowed" rules would apply to both peoples. The shortform is that we know that people package biases certain ways. And then we know that people try to posthoc justify their biases based on logic.

 

[eyrei]

This will get you in trouble if you dig in your heels. You're both correct and missing the point.

Okay, everything related to humanity is fundamentally biological. But that's going to be missing the point regarding whether something is also a social construct.
Like, no one is denying that 'race' draws upon physical characteristics or that physical characteristics are determined by biology. But 'race' is also a social construct. We easily know this, because people will insist upon classifying race on appearances rather than genetic distinctiveness.

We could have African tribes that are more genetically distinct than any European culture, and the "no blacks allowed" rules would apply to both peoples. The shortform is that we know that people package biases certain ways. And then we know that people try to posthoc justify their biases based on logic.

I would argue that race as a social construct was developed over time based on unscientific understandings of genetics, starting well before the word was even coined. That makes it a fundamentally biological concept. It certainly was abused by the power hungry, but that does not make it non-biological in origin.

 

[Lexicus]

I've presented numerous arguments and evidence. You have done nothing except tell me to read stuff...like 5 times now.

I'm asking for a real source for a claim you made in this thread. If you can't be bothered to source your claims so that we can get a real idea of what we're talking about here, there is no discussion to have.

Also, the mark of good faith engagement would be willingness to read something. If you are actually interested in learning you should be grateful for someone doing the work of providing you with references so you don't have to find them yourself.

Race is absolutely biological. Not even sure how to think of it otherwise.

No, it isn't. The way to think of it is as what it is: a social construct.

Genetics provide human uniqueness, but they also provide similarities that we refer to as race.

This is deeply wrong. What we have learned about human genetics has basically nothing to do with race, despite decades of failed effort by racists to pretend otherwise.

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/genetics-history-race-neanderthal-rutherford

In many ways, genetics makes a mockery of race. The characteristics of normal human variation we use to determine broad social categories of race—such as black, Asian, or white—are mostly things like skin color, morphological features, or hair texture, and those are all biologically encoded.

But when we look at the full genomes from people all over the world, those differences represent a tiny fraction of the differences between people. There is, for instance, more genetic diversity within Africa than in the rest of the world put together. If you take someone from Ethiopia and someone from the Sudan, they are more likely to be more genetically different from each other than either one of those people is to anyone else on the planet!

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/race-is-real-but-its-not-genetic

For over 300 years, socially defined notions of “race” have shaped human lives around the globe — but the category has no biological foundation.

Or if you want it maximally sophisticated:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1435

New genetic data has enabled scientists to re-examine the relationship between human genetic variation and 'race'. We review the results of genetic analyses that show that human genetic variation is geographically structured, in accord with historical patterns of gene flow and genetic drift. Analysis of many loci now yields reasonably accurate estimates of genetic similarity among individuals, rather than populations. Clustering of individuals is correlated with geographic origin or ancestry. These clusters are also correlated with some traditional concepts of race, but the correlations are imperfect because genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations. Therefore, ancestry, or even race, may in some cases prove useful in the biomedical setting, but direct assessment of disease-related genetic variation will ultimately yield more accurate and beneficial information.

So, in a way you are correct, I'm not ready to accept CRT...not because I'm stupid, but because it doesn't add up and requires I engage in cognitive dissonance. I prefer to leave that 'skill' to GOPers...

You're not ready to accept CRT because you ignorantly believe that race is biology. And such a belief actually puts you more in alignment with the GOP than with the Democrats despite your evident contempt for the GOP.