Space Force Officer Relieved After Denouncing CRT/Marxism

[Treetop Flyer]

One takeaway is anyone seriously using the words “equity” or “antiracist” in this context is not to be trusted or taken seriously.

 

[Pags]

Your analogy works to an extent. However some of the end states of the extreme (becoming mainstream) interpretations of CRT are much more serious. Instead of the SOP, try the foundations of the United States. As Kendi wrote “capitalism is essentially racist. Racism is essentially capitalist.” Proponents on the more extreme end (and with the loudest voices) would support redoing the US constitution, as it is “inherently racist.” The belief is that the US had a good run for a few hundred years, but it’s failed at its mission of a free society for all; time for a reset. Thats a little deeper than an SOP change for the modern times.

I am onboard that historical policies and people have left minority communities in bad shape. I don’t think anybody denies the US has some dark stains on its soul. But a complete overhaul is not appropriate.

I understand the concern on the rhetoric being used by extreme elements of the discussion but I don't see any of these extreme ideas like abolishing capitalism or throwing out the constitution as coming to fruition. We can barely pass a budget, a blanking of the slate isn't going to happen. Will our children think differently about things than we do? You bet...just like our parents generation saw some of our ideas and notions as bad/dangerous/etc. But I'm admittedly an insufferable optimist.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I understand the concern on the rhetoric being used by extreme elements of the discussion but I don't see any of these extreme ideas like abolishing capitalism or throwing out the constitution as coming to fruition. We can barely pass a budget, a blanking of the slate isn't going to happen. Will put children think differently about things than we do? You bet...just like our parents generation saw some of our ideas and notions as bad/dangerous/etc. But I'm admittedly an insufferable optimist.

I don’t think we’re going to have a full blown race war and second Holocaust because some fringe assholes are calling for it. But it’s still bad that they’re calling for it. The difference is The Turner Diaries isn’t recommended reading for all sailors to “start a conversation”.

 

[Spekkio]

*CRT in it's "traditional" definition is a legal approach/framework that attempts to address systemic racism. It seems to be upsetting because of the notion that there may be systemic racism and that power structures might be built to advantage some and not others. Apparently this is shocking to people. In addition some seem to not understand how the idea of acknowledging systemic racism can coexist with treating people equally.

Because that's not the tenent of critical race theory. They argue that the liberal concept of equality of treatment is insufficient to combat racism.

What do critical race theorists believe? ... First, that racism is ordinary, not aberrational—"normal science," the usual way society does business, the common, everyday experience of most people of color in this country. Second, most would agree that our system of white-over-color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material. The first feature, ordinariness, means that racism is difficult to cure or address. Color-blind, or "formal," conceptions of equality, expressed in rules that insist only on treatment that is the same across the board, can thus remedy only the most blatant forms of discrimination, such as mortgage redlining or the refusal to hire a black Ph.D. rather than a white high school dropout, that do stand out and attract our attention.

Not every ascriber to CRT may believe this, just like not every Democrat believes in medicare for all, but the debate is over the official philosophy of the organization being taught to children, not the views of any particular individual.

 

[wink]

I don't see how one argues that the difinition or tenents of CRT and other contemporary popular race theories have changed to something not orignially intended, when the authoritative voices and developers of the theories are saying the most radical things.

 

[Spekkio]

I don't see how one argues that the difinition or tenents of CRT and other contemporary popular race theories have changed to something not orignially intended, when the authoritative voices and developers of the theories are saying the most radical things.

It's simple - they heard or read a distilled interpretation of it, cherry picked the parts they liked (i.e. speaking out against systemic racism), and hopped on the bandwagon. It's kind of like supporting Nazism because it stood for the unification of Germany while ignoring all of the racism and antisemitism that came along with it.

 

[wink]

It's simple - they heard or read a distilled interpretation of it, cherry picked the parts they liked (i.e. speaking out against systemic racism), and hopped on the bandwagon. It's kind of like supporting Nazism because it stood for the unification of Germany while ignoring all of the racism and antisemitism that came along with it.

Ah, really? How does that square when they are the published authors?

 

[Mirage]

But, if the bank wanted to be more equitable, it could review it's policies and remove policies that affect the disadvantaged group. This would be anti-racist. I'd personally struggle to see what the issue would be actions like this other than an institution having to admit to past faults.

The bank removing the policies that affect the disadvantaged group would be a policy that brings equality, not equity. It would NOT be antiracist.

Take it from Kendi, who wrote the definitive book on antiracism. “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

The antiracist policy for the bank would be to create policies that make it harder for white people to get loans than other races. It would be to insert discrimination. That is antiracist.

Your failure to recognize this is why it's so hard for you to understand why people take issue with it. It's very difficult to imagine our school districts and government officials signing onto such a blatantly racist idea, so I don't blame you for doubting it or not believing this is the case. But it is.

 

[Spekkio]

Ah, really? How does that square when they are the published authors?

It doesn't. I thought your question was about the general public, not specific authors and founders of the movement.

 

[taxi1]

The antiracist policy for the bank would be to create policies that make it harder for white people to get loans than other races. It would be to insert discrimination.

That's not what he is saying

 

[Mirage]

That's not what he is saying

Please share what you think Kendi would say the antiracist policy for the bank would be then, based on the above quote from his book (or any other from him of course).

 

[Pags]

Because that's not the tenent of critical race theory. They argue that the liberal concept of equality of treatment is insufficient to combat racism.



Not every ascriber to CRT may believe this, just like not every Democrat believes in medicare for all, but the debate is over the official philosophy of the organization being taught to children, not the views of any particular individual.

I know and I said as much. CRT was developed to address less overt forms of racism. I'm not sure what the bold says different than what I've said or how it contains some nefarious "death to America/capitalism" message. But maybe that's what I'm missing and why I'm not worried.

Also, I still don't think a very specific legal framework is what is potentially being taught to kids. If so, kudos to the public school system for providing such an advanced legal education that is usually only reserved for those seeking a JD at ivy league institutions.

In case anyone is wondering why this is suddenly a thing, its because it's being made a thing on purpose to scare the

The bank removing the policies that affect the disadvantaged group would be a policy that brings equality, not equity. It would NOT be antiracist.

Take it from Kendi, who wrote the definitive book on antiracism. “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

The antiracist policy for the bank would be to create policies that make it harder for white people to get loans than other races. It would be to insert discrimination. That is antiracist.

Your failure to recognize this is why it's so hard for you to understand why people take issue with it. It's very difficult to imagine our school districts and government officials signing onto such a blatantly racist idea, so I don't blame you for doubting it or not believing this is the case. But it is.

So I found that passage and the surrounding text on the internet and read it a bunch of times. I'm not sure that's exactly what he intended to convey but I can see how that could be concluded from the text. However, I didn't see anywhere that he specifically said taking from group to give to another. But we'll just have to agree to disagree on this I guess.

 

[wink]

I didn't see anywhere that he specifically said taking from group to give to another.

Affirmatively disadvantaging one group to benefit another is exactly what is promoted. That is how you get to equity. Simply providing equality of opportunity and treatment will always yield disparate outcomes because of a myriad of other influences besides racial discrimination. Is Best Western discriminating against whites by franchising with so many of Indian origin or ancestry? Are nail salons racially discriminating against others by hiring a majority number of Vietnamese? The pursuit of racial equity is necessary because the lot of some minority groups has not improved fast enough or far enough under the classic civil rights model, and there is no stomach for looking within the group for solutions to problems effecting the group.

 

[Pags]

Affirmatively disadvantaging one group to benefit another is exactly what is promoted. That is how you get to equity. Simply providing equality of opportunity and treatment will always yield disparate outcomes because of a myriad of other influences besides racial discrimination. Is Best Western discriminating against whites by franchising with so many of Indian origin or ancestry? Are nail salons racially discriminating against others by hiring a majority number of Vietnamese? The pursuit of racial equity is necessary because the lot of some minority groups has not improved fast enough or far enough under the classic civil rights model, and there is no stomach for looking within the group for solutions to problems effecting the group.

Again, I disagree. I can see how you come to that conclusion but I see nothing that specifically says that or proposes that. Beyond how you think it would work have you see any mainstream proposals for taking from one to give to the other?

As I continue to say, to me this is where the discourse falls apart. Too many of these ideas sound like taking from people or blaming people today for the sins of the past. These ideas need to be reframed to not sound that way to make them successful.

Why is it the groups problem? Why isn't it something that we as Americans should be concerned about helping other Americans have the same opportunities many of us on this board do? I don't think it needs to be a zero sum game where if someone gets something then you need to give something up. And this doesn't have to be a communist thing, as a good capitalist country we should want more Americans to be financially secure and successful as that's good for the economy because there's now more people who can buy stuff.

 

[taxi1]

Please share what you think Kendi would say the antiracist policy for the bank would be then, based on the above quote from his book...

You are assuming a zero sum game where one group's gain is another's loss. His theory is that a more just society is better for everyone. That ought to at least be open to argument.

(or any other from him of course).

Ibram X. Kendi on anti-racism, Juneteenth, and the reckoning that wasn’t (msn.com)

My bold font below:

Fabiola Cineas
Absolutely. The thing that’s scariest for me in the conversations that have emerged in the past year is this idea that the more power that people of color get, the more equality that there is.

This means that white people are going to live in a world that’s worse for them. It means that it’s this, again, this idea of the zero-sum game that progress for people of color means that white people are going to lose. I feel like that is one of the most dangerous things that I’ve seen emerge in the past year or just get more attention. What are your thoughts on that?

Ibram X. Kendi
It is. And, for those white Americans and even people of color who believe that idea, I would point them to two recent books that were published. One is a book called The Sum of Us by Heather McGhee, which directly challenges this so-called zero-sum myth — that is, “people of color gain, white people lose.” And indeed, studies have shown historically and even currently that as we institute anti-racist policies, we all benefit.

The vast majority of Americans benefit as we’ve instituted racist policies or as we have not protected those Black people who [were] being preyed upon by lending packages before the Great Recession, which then allowed those predatory loans to pervade the entire system and thereby take down white homeowners because we did not care about those lives who were Black. [And] who were being lost at the end of April last year from Covid-19, which then allowed people to be like, oh, it’s not a big deal if we open states back up, which then led to more and more white people dying as well as people of color.

But then another book I would recommend is called A Dying of Whiteness by Jonathan Metzl. And both of these books really show how white racism is not just harmful to people of color, it’s harmful to white people, that anti-racism is not just beneficial for people of color, it’s beneficial to the majority of white Americans.

And I mean, we can go all the way back to whether we’re talking about the slaveholding era, where white slaveholders not just sapped the wealth of enslaved people of color, but the vast majority of people who lived in the South by the time of the Civil War were non-slave-holding, largely poor whites, whose poverty was directly related to the riches of racist white slaveholders.