• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Banning Critical Race Theory

Still don’t know what the fuck CRT is. But I’m confident people shouldn’t be punished by the race in which they were born white, black.
C or Asian.

Kinda like the time I got called a chink on these boards and the always talkative PH had shit to say

Well, a lot of GOP state legislatures and governors don't really seem to know what it is either, but they're banning it from being taught in schools nonetheless, which may well lead to worthwhile things that need discussing in schools and colleges being banned as well - like the historical treatment of Native Americans, African Americans, and other minority groups. Which is pretty much their actual goal.
 
"banning" critical theory with a straight face lol
 
So people, what the fuck is it? Is it just the idea that white privilege is built into society because yea duh.
 
gotta say that - knowing a few people who ID CRT as foundational to their work - White Fragility and How to Be an Antiracist aren't really foundational texts

Crenshaw is a good cite right at the beginning of that video though - Sylvia Wynter or Cheryl Harris or Sadiya Hartman or Frank Wilderson are probably better citations of the field but they aren't as easily recognizable/less immediately scary
 
I can dig up the reading list for the independent study I took with Dean Franco at Wake on CRT if anyone is properly interested

I know it was at least made up of

Dreams from My Father - Barack Obama
Passing - Nella Larsen
Collected Essays - James Baldwin
 
Gotta love the guy who didn't even read the cheat sheet close enough to get the name right

So can you explain what the fuck this is. Because I don’t have opinion on it. Besides republicans think it’s bad and liberals love it.
 
Beloved is the ur-CRT text; the gateway drug into questioning whether Blackness exists and frames the (non)Human
 
I can dig up the reading list for the independent study I took with Dean Franco at Wake on CRT if anyone is properly interested

I know it was at least made up of

Dreams from My Father - Barack Obama
Passing - Nella Larsencoukd you
Collected Essays - James Baldwin

Could you just cliff note that shit
 
I can dig up the reading list for the independent study I took with Dean Franco at Wake on CRT if anyone is properly interested

would actually be curious to see what was on that

Obama's novel doesn't strike me as a valuable add, but I guess there's an argument
 
Further to the thread topic than trying to explain it to catamount tonight, banning the teaching of a concept is silly. I remember being challenged by a few ideas I came across to the point of both intellectual discomfort and disagreement, things like epistemic privilege or the idea that assimilation a la “the melting pot” is perhaps antithetical to a pluralist, or at least multicultural society.

But much like other concepts I disliked or disagreed with in philosophy (utilitarianism, the categorical imperative) or in economics or political theory, it’s one thing to read and discuss an idea and another to just accept it as part of your worldview. It’s downright cowardly to ban the teaching of a concept, ideas in academics should be debated and discussed on the merits of their arguments.

If parents are worried their kids will get indoctrinated, they should do the work at home to challenge the thinking of the pedagogy and force their kids to think critically and engage them the same way a teacher would. I can’t imagine being scared of my kid encountering an idea that’s so dangerous that I’d never let him hear it.
 
The reason nobody can define CRT is because it's not a definable thing. Like, try to define "deconstruction" or "cultural materialism" or "poststructuralism" or "new historicism" or "new criticism." They are disciplinary-specific heuristics for theorizing texts, literary and historical. They are not designed for teaching elementary school children history or high school kids structural racism. They are ways of understanding the world, which are more or less in vogue based on who is cool and who is smart and who is getting published.

The reason terms like "systemic racism" (though Stokely Carmichael talked about institutional racism in the 60s) and white privilege and all the other terms exist, those that seem so commonplace now but were nowhere to be found in regular discourse a decade ago, is because a set of scholars have been thinking and writing about race and society for decades.

All the sudden it has become cool to talk about and a bunch of white scholars have made headlines for writing about stuff black scholars have been saying for literally thirty years. It all coalesced under the vague CRT. While I'm surprised to hear that phdeac doesn't touch it in sociology of race classes, it is absolutely commonplace in literature fields. But (obviously) it is nothing like the way the media now describes it.

If you want a real answer about CRT, catamount, read abstracts or reviews of Sara Ahmed, Cord Whitaker, Henry Lewis Gates, Bell Hooks.

And if you're genuinely interested in an "academic" definition, read this from the ever-reliable Purdue OWL, which got me through my undergraduate citations:

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_...chools_of_criticism/critical_race_theory.html
 
can you imagine reading Sara Ahmed in a sociology class whew lad
 
On Being Included is maybe top 10 academic books all time for graduate student me

super well written and calls attention to the obvious failings of "diversity" practices that continues to this day in the academy as if nothing was wrong
 
Obligatory #fuckduke

But sara ahmed probably the Judith Butler of our generation. Maybe that's too much. Or not enough
 
The reason nobody can define CRT is because it's not a definable thing. Like, try to define "deconstruction" or "cultural materialism" or "poststructuralism" or "new historicism" or "new criticism." They are disciplinary-specific heuristics for theorizing texts, literary and historical. They are not designed for teaching elementary school children history or high school kids structural racism. They are ways of understanding the world, which are more or less in vogue based on who is cool and who is smart and who is getting published.

The reason terms like "systemic racism" (though Stokely Carmichael talked about institutional racism in the 60s) and white privilege and all the other terms exist, those that seem so commonplace now but were nowhere to be found in regular discourse a decade ago, is because a set of scholars have been thinking and writing about race and society for decades.

All the sudden it has become cool to talk about and a bunch of white scholars have made headlines for writing about stuff black scholars have been saying for literally thirty years. It all coalesced under the vague CRT. While I'm surprised to hear that phdeac doesn't touch it in sociology of race classes, it is absolutely commonplace in literature fields. But (obviously) it is nothing like the way the media now describes it.

If you want a real answer about CRT, catamount, read abstracts or reviews of Sara Ahmed, Cord Whitaker, Henry Lewis Gates, Bell Hooks.

And if you're genuinely interested in an "academic" definition, read this from the ever-reliable Purdue OWL, which got me through my undergraduate citations:

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_...chools_of_criticism/critical_race_theory.html

Honestly, thanks for the answer. Pubs are fucking crazy, yes whites have had a massive advantage in this country. A little introspective thought might change some things.
 
Back
Top