• 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

To reframe the point, it’s didn’t just happen and it’s not Black people’s fault. White ancestors took that privilege away systematically over hundreds of years.
 
White People, starting with slave ships, *which were corporations*, purposefully separated African families, separated tribesman, slave owners separated families, sold away children, forbade slaves from speaking their native language or practicing their native religion, forced them to learn English and practice Christianity, all in the purpose of erasing their identities and connections to each other. Throughout American history Black culture and unification has been discouraged, often violently.

It’s a cruel dilemma that Black Americans have been systemically “otherized” for hundreds of years, while at the same time being systemically prevented from successfully forming their own parallel communities - basically forced by the state to accept 2nd class citizenship. To wit, the economic and social forces preventing Black Americans from home ownership is another major obstacle in Black families establishing or maintaining a familial lineage.
 
Yet the same people who are against the estate tax will claim lack of ancestry and stolen ancestral doesn’t matter.
 
TenaciousKory said:
Click to expand...

Any sense of comparative natal alienation is more likely caused by the comparatively high percentage of Black children born out of wedlock over the last century, a number that is around 75% today.

I personally don't know my family history beyond a few of my great-grandparents' names, nor do I particularly care to learn it, even if I could. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that most White people have a sense of belonging based on their antebellum lineage. We're a nation of immigrants, after all.
 
Last edited:
ignorance-ignorance-is-bliss.gif
 
WakeBored said:
Any sense of comparative familial alienation is more likely caused by the comparatively high percentage of Black children born out of wedlock over the last century, a number that is around 75% today.

I personally don't know my family history beyond a few of my great-grandparents' names, nor do I particularly care to learn it, even if I could. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that most White people have a sense of belonging based on their antebellum lineage. We're a nation of immigrants, after all.
Click to expand...

This is a gross wave off of centuries of slavery by someone who believes in protecting inherited wealth.

So much hate. And so much love for hate in this post.
 
WakeBored said:
Any sense of comparative familial alienation is more likely caused by the comparatively high percentage of Black children born out of wedlock over the last century, a number that is around 75% today.

I personally don't know my family history beyond a few of my great-grandparents' names, nor do I particularly care to learn it, even if I could. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that most White people have a sense of belonging based on their antebellum lineage. We're a nation of immigrants, after all.
Click to expand...

i don't know what "familial alienation" is. or what wedlock has to do with natal alienation.

seems mostly like a rhetorical move for you to shoehorn contemporary conservative values into a discussion about the intergenerational violence of chattel slavery.
 
I think it’s hard to say conservatives value not having children out of wedlock due to their staunch earnest stance against abortion. Clearly they prefer forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term out of wedlock and perhaps give the child up for adoption over those women choosing not to have a child out of wedlock.

But of course, that’s not what we are talking about. We are talking about slavery corporations and slave operations like those owned by many of the founding fathers, most of the 10 presidents, and supported by the vast majority of Americans over almost the first century of the country systematically destroying Black families. People like Junebug worship the people who perpetrated this actual cultural genocide while propping up those who claim to be “replaced.”
 
PhDeac said:
This is a gross wave off of centuries of slavery by someone who believes in protecting inherited wealth.

So much hate. And so much love for hate in this post.
Click to expand...

For as much as these fools mock sociology, they could all really benefit from a sociology class or two. That's just a staggeringly ignorant opinion despite the fact that millions of pages of peer-reviewed research in different fields, from scholars representing different ideological backgrounds, have been generated over generations.

It's less the ignorance that bothers me (ignorance isn't a final or total state for most people) than the confidence with which he feels comfortable posting about it publicly on a message board. It's telling that neither jhmd nor Junebug posts under their original handles anymore.
 
WakeBored said:
Any sense of comparative natal alienation is more likely caused by the comparatively high percentage of Black children born out of wedlock over the last century, a number that is around 75% today.

I personally don't know my family history beyond a few of my great-grandparents' names, nor do I particularly care to learn it, even if I could. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that most White people have a sense of belonging based on their antebellum lineage. We're a nation of immigrants, after all.
Click to expand...

This is a bad post.
 
wakephan09 said:
critical theory is not inherently Marxist, sailor. Most of it's not, in fact. But you're right about power structures being central to its critiques.

Why is that a problem for you?
Click to expand...

What do you mean "not inherently Marxist"? Critical Theory was developed by members of the Frankfurt School, which was a Marxist institution. The members were Marxists. The project of the Frankfurt School was to try to update and revive Marxism because the traditional horny-handed Proletariate - nowadays lubes like to refer to these as deplorables - remained hopelessly stuck in a false consciousness and no longer seemed suitable or capable of fulfilling the role Marx had insisted history had assigned to them, i.e. the overthrow of the existing system, or capitalism. So, Marxism need to be updated, and the Frankfurt School took up the task. Critical Theory was a tool for their project. Consequently, saying that "Critical Theory is not inherently Marxist" is simply wrong. While Critical Theory may contain elements imported from elsewhere, Critical Theory along with its various derivatives, such as Critical Race Theory, are all Marxist in inspiration, Marxist in form and content, Marxist in objective, and Marxist to the core. You can't get much more Marxist than Critical Theory.
 
Just because critical theory grew out of Marxist contexts does not mean that all critical theory is inherently Marxist.

Tell me please how Marxism informed New Criticism? Or the New Bibliography? Or Psychoanalysis? Or Formalism? Or structuralism?

In fact it's largely marxist thinking that pushed back against new criticism (thus, Greenblatt and New Historicism) and structuralism (hence, Althusser and poststructuralism) and semiotics (thus Derrida and deconstruction)

Historical materialism has been useful to, say, disability studies and feminist theory, but to say that these approaches are inherently Marxist would be wrong. The definition and scope of critical theory has broadened beyond its origin in Marxist critiques. (Though again, digging into power structures is central to its goals)
 
WakeBored said:
Any sense of comparative natal alienation is more likely caused by the comparatively high percentage of Black children born out of wedlock over the last century, a number that is around 75% today.

I personally don't know my family history beyond a few of my great-grandparents' names, nor do I particularly care to learn it, even if I could. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that most White people have a sense of belonging based on their antebellum lineage. We're a nation of immigrants, after all.
Click to expand...

Not this stupid bastard child argument again.
 
wakephan09 said:
Just because critical theory grew out of Marxist contexts does not mean that all critical theory is inherently Marxist.

Tell me please how Marxism informed New Criticism? Or the New Bibliography? Or Psychoanalysis? Or Formalism? Or structuralism?

In fact it's largely marxist thinking that pushed back against new criticism (thus, Greenblatt and New Historicism) and structuralism (hence, Althusser and poststructuralism) and semiotics (thus Derrida and deconstruction)

Historical materialism has been useful to, say, disability studies and feminist theory, but to say that these approaches are inherently Marxist would be wrong. The definition and scope of critical theory has broadened beyond its origin in Marxist critiques. (Though again, digging into power structures is central to its goals)
Click to expand...

Not only did Critical Theory grow out of Marxism, it was an effort to improve Marxism. Now, that's Marxist.

Psychoanalysis did not grow out of Marxism but the Frankfurt School attempted to combine and blend Freud and Marx.

To what ever extent the New Criticism, the New Bibliography, Formalism, or Structuralism were informed by Critical Theory they were also informed by Marxism.

Perhaps you have noticed that Marxists argue and criticize not just non-Marxists but each other as well. Perhaps not.

Derrida started out as a Marxist. It would be difficult to say that this experience had no influence on his thought. A lot of the founders of post-modernism were Marxists.

Staying with your organic expression "grew out of", think of it like this: the branches of an oak tree are still oak, arent they?
 
sailordeac said:
Not only did Critical Theory grow out of Marxism, it was an effort to improve Marxism. Now, that's Marxist.

Psychoanalysis did not grow out of Marxism but the Frankfurt School attempted to combine and blend Freud and Marx.

To what ever extent the New Criticism, the New Bibliography, Formalism, or Structuralism were informed by Critical Theory they were also informed by Marxism.

Perhaps you have noticed that Marxists argue and criticize not just non-Marxists but each other as well. Perhaps not.

Derrida started out as a Marxist. It would be difficult to say that this experience had no influence on his thought. A lot of the founders of post-modernism were Marxists.

Staying with your organic expression "grew out of", think of it like this: the branches of an oak tree are still oak, arent they?
Click to expand...

I’m a Marxist, and if I grow a plant - Marxist plant, if I make soup - Marxist soup, if I take a big shit - Marxist shit. Makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top