Critical race theory

[eyrei]

I'm having a hard time getting my head around this. How does introducing subjectivity (based on race) make this a more 'critical' or accurate way of thinking about/discussing race issues? Seems to me that makes it based on feelings and opinions, which we already have plenty of on the topic of race.

Keep in mind, I'm a Liberal. I have always believed that a level playing field (equality) is necessary for our society to flourish and, more importantly, is simply the morally correct way for a government/society to behave. People will rise or fall based on their own hard work and perseverance (capitalism), once the systems involved in organizing the society are designed to enforce equality, and those systems are enforced by the government.

I also believe that we have not accomplished that equality in the USA, and that there is much work to be done to do so. However, we get closer every year...not fast enough for some people, but it is still progress.

What I do not believe is that I am responsible for suppression of non-white people through my privilege, or that I have anything to apologize for based on my race. That idea is so...racist...it makes me sick.

So, someone please explain to me what makes this theory so critical and accurate. Or is this just being adopted by people who like the conclusions, without understanding the ideas behind them? How is it not racist?

 

[Berzerker]

i want everyone to enjoy white privilege, but since that probably wont happen until everyone is brown we'll have to settle for making white lives matter less now

 

[Lexicus]

I'm having a hard time getting my head around this. How does introducing subjectivity (based on race) make this a more 'critical' or accurate way of thinking about/discussing race issues? Seems to me that makes it based on feelings and opinions, which we already have plenty of on the topic of race.

If you actually are interested in educating yourself on this topic, I suggest reading a few titles from the list of texts on this page:
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_...chools_of_criticism/critical_race_theory.html

 

[eyrei]

If you actually are interested in educating yourself on this topic, I suggest reading a few titles from the list of texts on this page:
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_...chools_of_criticism/critical_race_theory.html

Many of the conclusions seem far fetched or exaggerated in some cases. For example, some research was done on diplomatic communications and concluded that the whole reason for whites supporting the civil rights movement was to increase our standing with non-white countries during the cold war. The research found something interesting, but that takes causation way, way too far. To be clear, the idea that the civil rights movement was a diplomatic endeavor is a conspiracy theory, not an academic one...

 

[Lexicus]

Many of the conclusions seem far fetched or exaggerated in some cases. For example, some research was done on diplomatic communications and concluded that the whole reason for whites supporting the civil rights movement was to increase our standing with non-white countries during the cold war. The research found something interesting, but that takes causation way, way too far. To be clear, this is a conspiracy theory, not an academic one...

So have you read any actual works of Critical Race Theory? For example, have you read this research you mention? Are you a historian?

 

[eyrei]

So have you read any actual works of Critical Race Theory? For example, have you read this research you mention? Are you a historian?

I read the wikipedia article, which usually clears up concepts for me, but did not in this case. So, I figured I'd ask the question here.

I'm looking for clarification, not claiming expertise. I'd also like proponents of critical race theory to defend it, because that will help me understand it.

You have done nothing but point me to resources. Have you read them yourself? Are you a historian? What do you think of critical race theory or any of my questions about what it means?

 

[schlaufuchs]

I'm having a hard time getting my head around this. How does introducing subjectivity (based on race) make this a more 'critical' or accurate way of thinking about/discussing race issues? Seems to me that makes it based on feelings and opinions, which we already have plenty of on the topic of race.

I would echo Lexi's position that you should probably read some of the material itself before coming to a conclusion about its function or scientificity.

For instance, Kimberle Crenshaw's landmark article Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex (the one that coined the term "intersectionality") specifically examines discrimination court cases, and notes how the intersection of two vectors of discrimination (in this case: race and gender) creates qualitatively different legal experiences than were they white women or black men bringing otherwise identical suits. The "subjectivity" piece is specifically that you can have a system with otherwise identical rules for everybody, but which nevertheless manifests discriminatory experiences or outcomes, because racism, ableism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. exist.

The point of theories like critical race theory are to point out that merely making things "equal to everyone at the point of entry" (i.e., a level playing field) doesn't actually translate to true equality. Both because individual bias exists, but (and this is the critical point that liberals seem to miss a lot) also because institutions exist in such a way to passively privilege a certain default group while likewise passively disadvantaging other groups merely by dint of their being the negation of the first group. It doesn't have to be premised on malice or a racial animus: you create a federal administration to give subsidized home loans to all as long as they can pass some income threshold, you proceed 30 years, and oh look at that you've moved all the white people into affluent suburbs and created racialized ghettoes because black people, due to slavery, the failure of reconstruction, the great migration, previously-existent segregation laws, and periodic race riots, are disproportionately less likely to have the generational wealth necessary to qualify for those loans, and so on. To be sure, a lot of outright racism and discrimination also occurred within the FHA's loan policies, but what critical race theory points out, is that you can have "legal equality" and still have systemic oppression and discrimination because the base assumptions built into the legal system result in different subjective experiences (in the philosophical sense: individuals as subjects within the structure).

 

[Lexicus]

You have done nothing but point me to resources. Have you read them yourself? Are you a historian? What do you think of critical race theory or any of my questions about what it means?

I'm pointing you to resources because that is what will allow you to form your own informed conclusions. I ask whether you're a historian so that I have some sense of how competent you are to judge the research you mentioned (though as you did not provide a link I am not sure what field that was in).

 

[eyrei]

I would echo Lexi's position that you should probably read some of the material itself before coming to a conclusion about its function or scientificity.

For instance, Kimberle Crenshaw's landmark article Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex (the one that coined the term "intersectionality") specifically examines discrimination court cases, and notes how the intersection of two vectors of discrimination (in this case: race and gender) creates qualitatively different legal experiences than were they white women or black men bringing otherwise identical suits. The "subjectivity" piece is specifically that you can have a system with otherwise identical rules for everybody, but which nevertheless manifests discriminatory experiences or outcomes, because racism, ableism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. exist.

The point of theories like critical race theory are to point out that merely making things "equal to everyone at the point of entry" (i.e., a level playing field) doesn't actually translate to true equality. Both because individual bias exists, but (and this is the critical point that liberals seem to miss a lot) also because institutions exist in such a way to passively privilege a certain default group while likewise passively disadvantaging other groups merely by dint of their being the negation of the first group. It doesn't have to be premised on malus or a racial animus: you create a federal administration to give subsidized home loans to all as long as they can pass some income threshold, you proceed 30 years, and oh look at that you've moved all the white people into affluent suburbs and created racialized ghettoes because black people, due to slavery, the failure of reconstruction, the great migration, previously-existent segregation laws, and periodic race riots, are disproportionately less likely to have the generational wealth necessary to qualify for those loans, and so on. To be sure, a lot of outright racism and discrimination also occurred within the FHA's loan policies, but what critical race theory points out, is that you can have "legal equality" and still have systemic oppression and discrimination because the base assumptions built into the legal system result in different subjective experiences (in the philosophical sense: individuals as subjects within the structure).

Thanks for the response! I do understand your argument, but how is the government supposed to quantify such disparities in order to provide remedies? For example, how do you make the legal system more equal for black women without at the same time making it less equal for Asian women, if each intersection requires special and subjective treatment? What happens if they are adversaries in our adversarial legal system? These are very fundamental questions, and I am certain I'm not the only Liberal wondering how all this adds up...while we will agree with the facts presented in the research, the conclusions being drawn are very much debatable...

 

[Valka D'Ur]

What I do not believe is that I am responsible for suppression of non-white people through my privilege, or that I have anything to apologize for based on my race. That idea is so...racist...it makes me sick.

Same here. The word "colonizer" is thrown around a lot here. Sorry, but it's not my fault that nearly 100 years ago my paternal grandfather came to Canada from Sweden and owned a sawmill and farmed in BC and Alberta in the 1930s and 1940s. It's not my fault that my paternal great-grandfather (grandmother's father) decided to emigrate from Sweden to Canada a few years before WWI and homestead. All this happened decades before I was born, I'm not responsible for the dismal lack of FN/aboriginal/native/Indigenous content in my school curriculum, so take the word "colonizer" and fly a kite with it when talking to me. It's pointless to tell me to "go back to Europe" because I've never been there. I know where my ancestors are from on my dad's side, but we haven't had any contact with any of them in 35 years (the letters stopped coming right after my grandmother wrote to tell them my grandfather died). /rant


Season 4 of The Handmaid's Tale premiers tonight. We've been looking forward to it for two years (filming was abruptly stopped when the pandemic got serious in Ontario).

I predict that over half of the comments on the various YT review channels are going to be ranting and screeching how the show has "appropriated" the Harriet Tubman story and HOW DARE THEY MAKE ANY WHITE WOMEN INTO VICTIMS even though the series is about a dystopian future where most of the U.S. is under a theocratic dictatorship that views ALL women as property (the Wives have a bit more privilege than the rest, but they're still not allowed to read or write).

It's news to most of these people that slavery isn't just an American issue; it's been happening all around the world for millennia and is still going on. It's a dystopian fiction series, not a documentary about race relations.

 

[Berzerker]

critical race theory in under a minute

I read a little about CRT, not sure why people have a problem with it. Race permeates melting pots, I grew up in a city and went to school with people from all over the world. They even sent the city's disabled people to my school, kinda humbling walking down the hallway as kids in wheelchairs roll around.

 

[eyrei]

I'm pointing you to resources because that is what will allow you to form your own informed conclusions. I ask whether you're a historian so that I have some sense of how competent you are to judge the research you mentioned (though as you did not provide a link I am not sure what field that was in).

I seriously laughed at loud at you judging my competence to interpret history, or anything for that matter. Who do you think you are? Seriously? I thought I was arrogant...

But to answer your question, I have a Liberal arts degree from Guilford College (no, I'm not a Quaker but I do follow most of their beliefs). I also am a self-taught software developer, systems administrator and data security/compliance officer. I have had friends from many 'intersections' and political persuasions, and at one point did actually want to be a historian.

 

[Lexicus]

I seriously laughed at loud at you judging my competence to judge history, or anything for that matter. Who do you think you are? Seriously? I thought I was arrogant...

If you want to retreat into some postmodern fantasy where qualifications and competence are meaningless and all opinions are equal and equally subjective or whatever, then why did you even start this thread? Who do you think you are, to judge the works of Critical Race Theory, evidently without even having read any of them?

But to answer your question, I have a Liberal arts degree from Guilford College (no, I'm not a Quaker but I do follow most of their beliefs). I also am a self-taught software developer, systems administrator and data security/compliance officer. I have had friends from many 'intersections' and political persuasions, and at one point did actually want to be a historian.

Well, if I had started a thread about some software development-related topic, would you take my opinions more or less seriously if I said I had no background or experience in software engineering? Would you take my opinions more or less seriously if I had a degree in computer science and ten years of work experience developing software?

 

[Farm Boy]

Is questions and how questions are not ought questions. The qualifications for the intersections of ought are significantly less stringent than the strident should say.

 

[eyrei]

If you want to retreat into some postmodern fantasy where qualifications and competence are meaningless and all opinions are equal and equally subjective or whatever, then why did you even start this thread? Who do you think you are, to judge the works of Critical Race Theory, evidently without even having read any of them?



Well, if I had started a thread about some software development-related topic, would you take my opinions more or less seriously if I said I had no background or experience in software engineering? Would you take my opinions more or less seriously if I had a degree in computer science and ten years of work experience developing software?

I'm trying to figure out if the Democrats are going off the rails with this, to be honest. I'm not questioning any of the research that critical race theory is based on...I'm questioning the conclusions drawn from that research, as they seem to draw from wishful thinking as much as logic . I'm actually giving proponents of this theory the benefit of the doubt, and accepting the research at face value. However, I think their conclusions are incorrect in some cases, and taken as a whole this theory has a lot of holes in it.

The equivalent in software engineering would be you being asked to explain the logic for some function you wanted written, using a human language instead of a programming language. I would fully expect an intelligent person with no training to do reasonably well at that, just as Socrates showed that the basic concepts of mathematics are available to the most uneducated among us. At any rate, claiming that only historians can understand your theory is not going to get you (or your theory) very far. In fact, that sounds awfully elitist...

 

[Gorbles]

I think the problem is you've come here with preconceptions of what critical race theory is, eyrei. There's nothing wrong with that. However, you're (effectively) challenging folks to change that, but that's a hard thing to change. Especially if you don't want to go down the reading route, or the like. If your issue is specifically what a US political party is doing with the theory, then I'd say that's a specific argument that doesn't necessarily relate to critical race theory as a whole. It's more pointed at the Democrats and their behaviour, in-context.

Speaking as a software engineer (of some description, the technical titles vary between the paradigms of engineer and developer), the problem isn't explaining the logic. It's reconciling the logic to the framework to which its relevant. Explaining a series of steps that perform an action is one thing (which is, in essence, the core of describing any method in any software). That's not necessarily helpful or relevant to solving any problem, though. I don't expect someone with no training to know the pitfalls of an environment or programming language, but if we accept that, what use is explaining the logic for a function that you wanted written? You could end up with a described function that cannot be written.

I think that's the dissonance here with critical race theory. I think you need to engage with the writing behind it in order to build a better understanding. The problem with these concepts (especially in a political arena) is its very easy to build up a misinformed picture of what they really are. Particularly in countries with divisive and / or few voting options.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm trying to figure out if the Democrats are going off the rails with this, to be honest. I'm not questioning any of the research that critical race theory is based on...I'm questioning the conclusions drawn from that research, as they seem to draw from wishful thinking as much as logic . I'm actually giving proponents of this theory the benefit of the doubt, and accepting the research at face value. However, I think their conclusions are incorrect in some cases, and taken as a whole this theory has a lot of holes in it.

The equivalent in software engineering would be you being asked to explain the logic for some function you wanted written, using a human language instead of a programming language. I would fully expect an intelligent person with no training to do reasonably well at that, just as Socrates showed that the basic concepts of mathematics are available to the most uneducated among us. At any rate, claiming that only historians can understand your theory is not going to get you (or your theory) very far. In fact, that sounds awfully elitist...

The title of the thread is "Critical race theory" and the OP asks a series of questions about critical race theory. Critical race theory is the academic work, so if you are taking the validity of the academic work for granted there is nothing to discuss: the answer is yes, the research is correct and valuable, and anything you've heard a Democrat say about it is probably just stupid.

You seem to be interested in a deeper inquiry than that - correct me if I'm wrong. But if I'm not wrong, it isn't a matter of "only historians can understand the theory," but it is to some degree going to be a matter of "only a person with a background in the relevant field is qualified to judge the methods used in a piece of research," similarly to how you would not trust me, who can barely write a line of code, to tell you how to improve a program you wrote.

 

[eyrei]

I think the problem is you've come here with preconceptions of what critical race theory is, eyrei. There's nothing wrong with that. However, you're (effectively) challenging folks to change that, but that's a hard thing to change. Especially if you don't want to go down the reading route, or the like. If your issue is specifically what a US political party is doing with the theory, then I'd say that's a specific argument that doesn't necessarily relate to critical race theory as a whole. It's more pointed at the Democrats and their behaviour, in-context.

Speaking as a software engineer (of some description, the technical titles vary between the paradigms of engineer and developer), the problem isn't explaining the logic. It's reconciling the logic to the framework to which its relevant. Explaining a series of steps that perform an action is one thing (which is, in essence, the core of describing any method in any software). That's not necessarily helpful or relevant to solving any problem, though. I don't expect someone with no training to know the pitfalls of an environment or programming language, but if we accept that, what use is explaining the logic for a function that you wanted written? You could end up with a described function that cannot be written.

I think that's the dissonance here with critical race theory. I think you need to engage with the writing behind it in order to build a better understanding. The problem with these concepts (especially in a political arena) is its very easy to build up a misinformed picture of what they really are. Particularly in countries with divisive and / or few voting options.

I'm not so sure I'm the misinformed or biased party here. I'm building my opinion of this theory as we discuss. I'm pointing out holes in the logic, and the primary response I'm getting is to read more.

But I'm not questioning the research. I'm questioning peoples' conclusions while I draw my own, as should all of you. The fact that everyone is struggling to plug the holes I'm pointing out in the theory shows that they have not questioned the conclusions, and that is disturbing considering the certainty with which its proponents speak.

 

[Gorbles]

I'm not so sure I'm the misinformed or biased party here. I'm building my opinion of this theory as we discuss. I'm pointing out holes in the logic, and the primary response I'm getting is to read more.

But I'm not questioning the research. I'm questioning peoples' conclusions while I draw my own, as should all of you. The fact that everyone is struggling to plug the holes I'm pointing out in the theory shows that they have not questioned the conclusions, and that is disturbing considering the certainty with which its proponents speak.

If you're not questioning the research, what holes are you talking about being plugged? This isn't a dig, I genuinely don't understand the separation. Peoples' conclusions to the research are separate to the research. If the research itself draws its own conclusions (as papers can do), then that belongs to the research.

What holes do you think people are struggling to plug? If the research is sound, why do the conclusions need questioning? Whose conclusions need questioning?

 

[schlaufuchs]

It's important to disentangle the theoretical framework and the prescriptions stemming from the academy, from politicians' understanding of what that theoretical framework is and what its prescriptions may or may not be. Both because people might have a totally different understanding of that framework, or they may be trying to reconcile that framework into a bunch of other existing networks of knowledge and ideology.

To return to beating the dead horse of programming analogies: python is a great language and produces wonderfully elegant programs when properly understood and applied. That doesn't stop individuals from using it to write horrendously mangled programs rife with antipatterns with it. So again: there's critical theory the programming language and there's randos on twitter and virtue-signalling politicians producing horsehockey code with it. Which are you talking about? Because when we start talking about the language you shift to the code writers, and when we point this out you retreat into vagaries about the language.