Andrew Sullivan on Crtitical (race) Theory

[CO. Hoosier]

Andrew Sullivan delivers Critical (race) theory a gut punch with this well written and well thought out piece. Read the whole thing. There is much to agree with here. I'll focus on the following:

The genius of liberalism in unleashing human freedom and the human mind changed us more in centuries than we had changed in hundreds of millennia. And at its core, there is the model of the single, interchangeable, equal citizen, using reason to deliberate the common good with fellow citizens. No ultimate authority; just inquiry and provisional truth. No final answer: an endless conversation. No single power, but many in competition.​

​

In this open-ended conversation, all can participate, conservatives and liberals, and will have successes and failures in their turn. What matters, both conservatives and liberals agree, is not the end result, but the liberal democratic, open-ended means. That shift — from specifying a single end to insisting only on playing by the rules — is the key origin of modern freedom.​

​

My central problem with critical theory is that it takes precise aim at these very core principles and rejects them. By rejecting them, in the otherwise noble cause of helping the marginalized, it is a very seductive and potent threat to liberal civilization.​

​

A.S. goes on to explain how CRT proponents cast free expression as a white construct which furthers oppression and racism. Why? Because the system was built by white westerners who do not have the lived experience of marginalized people

I'm always on the lookout for what the end game is for the CRT proponent. A.S. doesn't provide that either. Maybe they don't have one. A.S. does describe what he sees as the consequence of CRT whether intended or not:

I’m sorry but this matters. It’s not the only thing that matters right now, I know. But if we remove the corner-stone of liberal democracy — the concept of a free, interchangeable citizen using reason to deliberate the common good with her fellow citizens, regardless of any identity — then it is only a matter of time before it falls. This does not mean ignoring or overlooking the real struggles that African-Americans in particular have endured and continue to endure. It is to insist that we can do better — within a self-correcting, open liberal system — without surrendering to tribalism, race obsessiveness, or utopian attempts to force racial justice which violate the core guardrails against tyranny we rely upon for the survival of liberal democracy.​

​

I cannot be a stronger proponent of free expression and the benefits of free exchange of ideas. I further believe that the old saw about the life-span of empires or countries will be rendered irrelevant so long as the country or empire in question maintains in perpetuity the free exchange of ideas. A.S. nails it with his observations that our system requires endless conversations from a robust variety of sources. There is no final answer. There is no right answer. There is no settled science.. There is only a continual and ongoing conversation with free exchange of ideas.

This is why I am concerned about what I have seen in just the last few months. Government, business, media, education, entertainment, sports, and more are coalescing around set of ideas that many not only disagree with, but are prohibited through threats of reprisals of various kinds from even speaking about. The examples are many and A.S. mentions a few of them. We cannot go down that road hope to survive.

Finally, I love Sullivan's punch at the phrase "being on the right side of history". I thought that was a crock from the very first time I heard it--from you know who. Claiming that your position is the right side of history and somebody else's isn't, is simply an arrogant and smug way of saying "you are full of shit". I prefer the latter. It's much easier to understand.

​

 

[IUCrazy2]

It is too bad this is not getting more responses. Good post, that I do not have much to add but bumping to see if discussion is generated.

 

[larsIU]

I'll bite.

This does not mean ignoring or overlooking the real struggles that African-Americans in particular have endured and continue to endure. It is to insist that we can do better — within a self-correcting, open liberal system — without surrendering to tribalism, race obsessiveness, or utopian attempts to force racial justice which violate the core guardrails against tyranny we rely upon for the survival of liberal democracy.

CRT is a response to 100's of years of real institutional racism. Yes we passed Civil Rights legislation in the 60's (and after). Yes, Brown v BOE effectively integrated the schools. But Ruby Bridges is still alive and barely retired. We're not two generations out from real institutional racism, let alone those folks who own/run businesses and instill a non institutional variant.

I'm not a member of a marginalized group and I certainly have none of that experience. I don't like CRT for the reasons both you and Andrew Sullivan espouse. But....is it possible CRT is a response to formerly entrenched power structure dragging its feet on civil rights legislation or remedies for the ills of institutional racism?

And as far as businesses are concerned...racial equality/diversity is now a selling point (which on the whole is good!) but we're a capitalistic society. As soon as one does it everyone else will too. It's like airbags. Once one manufacturer did it, and long before they were mandated, all the others fell in line. Don't know how to fix that or if we even want to.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I'm not a member of a marginalized group and I certainly have none of that experience. I don't like CRT for the reasons both you and Andrew Sullivan espouse. But....is it possible CRT is a response to formerly entrenched power structure dragging its feet on civil rights legislation or remedies for the ills of institutional racism?

CBS Sunday Morning touched on CRT a couple weeks ago, and Sullivan was one of the people interviewed. A person they also spoke with was a YouTube self-proclaimed SJW. This person said that when they were in public school, they heard teachers call gay kids, "******s". So their take on things like CRT is to make sure that such behavior is never acceptable again. I think that goes to your point. I made a quick search for the story and didn't see it online.

For a long time, we have accepted some behaviors as "character building" or "boys will be boys". I believe some of what we are seeing is a backlash to that. The people who were bullied have discovered that together they have a very strong voice. The good news for people who hate CRT, SJW, and all the rest is that it all this will run out of steam.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

This person said that when they were in public school, they heard teachers call gay kids, "******s".

bullshit. Name names. Witnesses.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

CBS Sunday Morning touched on CRT a couple weeks ago, and Sullivan was one of the people interviewed. A person they also spoke with was a YouTube self-proclaimed SJW. This person said that when they were in public school, they heard teachers call gay kids, "******s". So their take on things like CRT is to make sure that such behavior is never acceptable again. I think that goes to your point. I made a quick search for the story and didn't see it online.

For a long time, we have accepted some behaviors as "character building" or "boys will be boys". I believe some of what we are seeing is a backlash to that. The people who were bullied have discovered that together they have a very strong voice. The good news for people who hate CRT, SJW, and all the rest is that it all this will run out of steam.

Running out of steam is not an antidote to the real time damage being done. Moreover, CRT and SJW are bullying. Bullying never runs out of steam.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Running out of steam is not an antidote to the real time damage being done. Moreover, CRT and SJW are bullying. Bullying never runs out of steam.

It may not, which raises the question why so many didn't give a damn when it was the gay kid being bullied but suddenly find it the biggest problem America faces today?

 

[IUCrazy2]

CBS Sunday Morning touched on CRT a couple weeks ago, and Sullivan was one of the people interviewed. A person they also spoke with was a YouTube self-proclaimed SJW. This person said that when they were in public school, they heard teachers call gay kids, "******s". So their take on things like CRT is to make sure that such behavior is never acceptable again. I think that goes to your point. I made a quick search for the story and didn't see it online.

For a long time, we have accepted some behaviors as "character building" or "boys will be boys". I believe some of what we are seeing is a backlash to that. The people who were bullied have discovered that together they have a very strong voice. The good news for people who hate CRT, SJW, and all the rest is that it all this will run out of steam.

Yeah, it will run out of steam after we have ruined a generation. Look, I am in a school system that has apparently been pushing this bull shit for a few years. Like really made it a priority to discuss DEI topics. And you know what has happened in concert with that? Academic scores fell across the board for all students. Our system had the advantage of starting in the Top 10 in the state just a few years ago (Top 3 actually) and now we are out of the Top 10.

CRT is sabotaging our kids future based on a past that does not exist anymore. Everyone has an equal opportunity now. The biggest factors holding people back are not skin color, it is personal decisions made by them and their parents. And the biggest factor is the dissolution of the nuclear family. And before anyone argues prior racism as the cause for that, the marriage rate in 1960 for blacks was as high or higher than it is for whites now. Are there racist people? Yes. Has the system been discriminatory in the past? Yes. Is it now? No.

You want to improve outcomes? Stop teaching kids that the world is oppressor and oppressed and get back to teaching them that the world is their oyster and everyone can earn a decent living with the right choices. That does not mean that you are always going to keep up with the Joneses, you cannot make that promise to any race. However, there is the ability for everyone to make a living here. Everyone. Stop telling people the deck is stacked against them, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that does no one any good except the people who make money off the despair they spread.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Yeah, it will run out of steam after we have ruined a generation. Look, I am in a school system that has apparently been pushing this bull shit for a few years. Like really made it a priority to discuss DEI topics. And you know what has happened in concert with that? Academic scores fell across the board for all students. Our system had the advantage of starting in the Top 10 in the state just a few years ago (Top 3 actually) and now we are out of the Top 10.

CRT is sabotaging our kids future based on a past that does not exist anymore. Everyone has an equal opportunity now. The biggest factors holding people back are not skin color, it is personal decisions made by them and their parents. And the biggest factor is the dissolution of the nuclear family. And before anyone argues prior racism as the cause for that, the marriage rate in 1960 for blacks was as high or higher than it is for whites now. Are there racist people? Yes. Has the system been discriminatory in the past? Yes. Is it now? No.

You want to improve outcomes? Stop teaching kids that the world is oppressor and oppressed and get back to teaching them that the world is their oyster and everyone can earn a decent living with the right choices. That does not mean that you are always going to keep up with the Joneses, you cannot make that promise to any race. However, there is the ability for everyone to make a living here. Everyone. Stop telling people the deck is stacked against them, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that does no one any good except the people who make money off the despair they spread.

It always comes back to the same circular argument. If we tell people that the world is fair and just and the only thing that possibly matters is their effort, does that make it so? Is the world 100% fair and just? Can we make it more fair and just or do we just pretend it is and go on?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'll bite.



CRT is a response to 100's of years of real institutional racism. Yes we passed Civil Rights legislation in the 60's (and after). Yes, Brown v BOE effectively integrated the schools. But Ruby Bridges is still alive and barely retired. We're not two generations out from real institutional racism, let alone those folks who own/run businesses and instill a non institutional variant.

I'm not a member of a marginalized group and I certainly have none of that experience. I don't like CRT for the reasons both you and Andrew Sullivan espouse. But....is it possible CRT is a response to formerly entrenched power structure dragging its feet on civil rights legislation or remedies for the ills of institutional racism?

And as far as businesses are concerned...racial equality/diversity is now a selling point (which on the whole is good!) but we're a capitalistic society. As soon as one does it everyone else will too. It's like airbags. Once one manufacturer did it, and long before they were mandated, all the others fell in line. Don't know how to fix that or if we even want to.

Disagree. CRT is about bullies being bullies. It exploded on the scene the old fashioned way, Its advocates exploit racial grievances with events of 400 years ago for purposes of power, influence, control, and money in the present day. . We were on the right track with MLK’s message. But once whites bought in, which was happening, the hustlers moved in the keep things stirred up. This is similar to your airbag analogy.

This isn’t to say that we don’t have racial issues that must be addressed. But it is to say that a peaceful and congenial way forward to address racial discrimination is not what the bullies want.

Meanwhile, the black youngster in Atlanta who wanted to celebrate his baseball hero at the allstar game is told to go f*ck himself—by the President of the United States! This has got to stop.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It always comes back to the same circular argument. If we tell people that the world is fair and just and the only thing that possibly matters is their effort, does that make it so? Is the world 100% fair and just? Can we make it more fair and just or do we just pretend it is and go on?

You need to reread Sullivan’s piece. You badly miss the point. This isn’t a circular argument.

 

[IUCrazy2]

It always comes back to the same circular argument. If we tell people that the world is fair and just and the only thing that possibly matters is their effort, does that make it so? Is the world 100% fair and just? Can we make it more fair and just or do we just pretend it is and go on?

It is not our job to make outcomes fair and just, it is to give everyone an opportunity to succeed. "Oh no, that person had an easier road than me..." So the **** what? Maybe you were on a bike and they were in a car. You still had the same road that you can travel. And you can still reach goals and have a good life. Everyone will not get an advantage that a Bezos or Zuckerberg's kids will...that does not mean that you cannot be a success and live a comfortable and happy life because you started in a trailer or government apartments. And really, that is not the argument being made is it? Because CRT would tell you that Malia Obama has a harder row to hoe than some poor white kid in coal country West Virginia based on their race. Or, a middle class black person living in my suburban community has it harder than a white kid with one meth addicted mother and no father in Beech Grove. "Well the white kid won't be judged on his race like a black person..." No, he will be judged on his unkempt appearance, his potential lack of socially acceptable manners, his lower education status, on what his parents are doing, etc., etc. CRT makes race THE determining factor for everyone. Additionally, it is a religion that allows for no salvation. One can never cleanse their sin of whiteness for folks like Kendi and Diangelo. To do so would eventually dry up their grift. That is why they have moved to the schools. We need to tell white kids they are pieces of shit for their color because that is what we have told minority kids for so long. You are not uplifting anyone with this nonsense. Minority kids are told that they have no real control over their lives, they can only get what their white betters will allow for them. Conversely, white kids are told that they are basically born racists and that none of their accomplishments can ever amount to a great thing because they achieved due to advantages of their color. It is a race to the bottom.

Critical theory is stupid ass Marxism. Mixing race into the equation just makes it even more dumb. There is no successful society based on any of this that you can point to anywhere. We do have success stories based on the world view that I espouse. You currently live in one. Just because things have not been perfect does not mean the system is bad.

 

[Univee2]

Disagree. CRT is about bullies being bullies. It exploded on the scene the old fashioned way, Its advocates exploit racial grievances with events of 400 years ago for purposes of power, influence, control, and money in the present day. . We were on the right track with MLK’s message. But once whites bought in, which was happening, the hustlers moved in the keep things stirred up. This is similar to your airbag analogy.

This isn’t to say that we don’t have racial issues that must be addressed. But it is to say that a peaceful and congenial way forward to address racial discrimination is not what the bullies want.

Meanwhile, the black youngster in Atlanta who wanted to celebrate his baseball hero at the allstar game is told to go f*ck himself—by the President of the United States! This has got to stop.

And the media, agenda driven as it is, fans the flames. One need only look at the back-tracking now occurring wrt the origin of Covid. If Donald Trump and Tom Cotton stated/believed it was lab-developed, and did not originate in some stupid wet market, then of course that could never be the case. Rather than investigate - you know, their job/responsibility - they just retreated to their comfortable corner, "liked" by their compatriots.

 

[Univee2]

Andrew Sullivan delivers Critical (race) theory a gut punch with this well written and well thought out piece. Read the whole thing. There is much to agree with here. I'll focus on the following:

The genius of liberalism in unleashing human freedom and the human mind changed us more in centuries than we had changed in hundreds of millennia. And at its core, there is the model of the single, interchangeable, equal citizen, using reason to deliberate the common good with fellow citizens. No ultimate authority; just inquiry and provisional truth. No final answer: an endless conversation. No single power, but many in competition.​

​

In this open-ended conversation, all can participate, conservatives and liberals, and will have successes and failures in their turn. What matters, both conservatives and liberals agree, is not the end result, but the liberal democratic, open-ended means. That shift — from specifying a single end to insisting only on playing by the rules — is the key origin of modern freedom.​

​

My central problem with critical theory is that it takes precise aim at these very core principles and rejects them. By rejecting them, in the otherwise noble cause of helping the marginalized, it is a very seductive and potent threat to liberal civilization.​

​

A.S. goes on to explain how CRT proponents cast free expression as a white construct which furthers oppression and racism. Why? Because the system was built by white westerners who do not have the lived experience of marginalized people

I'm always on the lookout for what the end game is for the CRT proponent. A.S. doesn't provide that either. Maybe they don't have one. A.S. does describe what he sees as the consequence of CRT whether intended or not:

I’m sorry but this matters. It’s not the only thing that matters right now, I know. But if we remove the corner-stone of liberal democracy — the concept of a free, interchangeable citizen using reason to deliberate the common good with her fellow citizens, regardless of any identity — then it is only a matter of time before it falls. This does not mean ignoring or overlooking the real struggles that African-Americans in particular have endured and continue to endure. It is to insist that we can do better — within a self-correcting, open liberal system — without surrendering to tribalism, race obsessiveness, or utopian attempts to force racial justice which violate the core guardrails against tyranny we rely upon for the survival of liberal democracy.​

​

I cannot be a stronger proponent of free expression and the benefits of free exchange of ideas. I further believe that the old saw about the life-span of empires or countries will be rendered irrelevant so long as the country or empire in question maintains in perpetuity the free exchange of ideas. A.S. nails it with his observations that our system requires endless conversations from a robust variety of sources. There is no final answer. There is no right answer. There is no settled science.. There is only a continual and ongoing conversation with free exchange of ideas.

This is why I am concerned about what I have seen in just the last few months. Government, business, media, education, entertainment, sports, and more are coalescing around set of ideas that many not only disagree with, but are prohibited through threats of reprisals of various kinds from even speaking about. The examples are many and A.S. mentions a few of them. We cannot go down that road hope to survive.

Finally, I love Sullivan's punch at the phrase "being on the right side of history". I thought that was a crock from the very first time I heard it--from you know who. Claiming that your position is the right side of history and somebody else's isn't, is simply an arrogant and smug way of saying "you are full of shit". I prefer the latter. It's much easier to understand.

​

​

I read this last Friday, I believe, as I get his deal e-mailed weekly. While I don't agree with him frequently, I find him to be an incredibly-good writer and a person with some terrific insights. Deemed too liberal by some and too conservative by others, as with an Umpire pissing off both teams, he must be doing something right . . .

 

[larsIU]

Disagree. CRT is about bullies being bullies. It exploded on the scene the old fashioned way, Its advocates exploit racial grievances with events of 400 years ago for purposes of power, influence, control, and money in the present day. . We were on the right track with MLK’s message. But once whites bought in, which was happening, the hustlers moved in the keep things stirred up. This is similar to your airbag analogy.

This isn’t to say that we don’t have racial issues that must be addressed. But it is to say that a peaceful and congenial way forward to address racial discrimination is not what the bullies want.

Meanwhile, the black youngster in Atlanta who wanted to celebrate his baseball hero at the allstar game is told to go f*ck himself—by the President of the United States! This has got to stop.

Well, as I noted, I'm not a fan of CRT but understand why it grew as a response to real institutional racism. It's creation in the 70's/80's wasn't far removed from that institutional racism. Sure, it may be rooted in events starting 400 years ago but those effects were certainly still very much felt in the 40's/50's/60's and after MLK and the civil rights movement.

Also, saying the way forward should be "peaceful and congenial" smacks of paternalism coming from the group that benefitted most from those 400 years of institutional racism. Confrontation is probably not the best idea either but the way forward is certainly somewhere in the middle, likely with very specific and pointed debate.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Well, as I noted, I'm not a fan of CRT but understand why it grew as a response to real institutional racism. It's creation in the 70's/80's wasn't far removed from that institutional racism. Sure, it may be rooted in events starting 400 years ago but those effects were certainly still very much felt in the 40's/50's/60's and after MLK and the civil rights movement.

Also, saying the way forward should be "peaceful and congenial" smacks of paternalism coming from the group that benefitted most from those 400 years of institutional racism. Confrontation is probably not the best idea either but the way forward is certainly somewhere in the middle, likely with very specific and pointed debate.

CRT does not allow for debate. It is anti-liberal (in the classic sense) which is what CoH's linked article discusses.

 

[larsIU]

CRT does not allow for debate. It is anti-liberal (in the classic sense) which is what CoH's linked article discusses.

And I won't disagree with you. CRT is not the way forward. But neither is hoping western liberalism will somehow solve the problem.

 

[IUCrazy2]

And I won't disagree with you. CRT is not the way forward. But neither is hoping western liberalism will somehow solve the problem.

Western liberalism is the way to the solution because Western liberalism allows for a back and forth that eventually lands on a consensus to move forward. We were on that path until recently. The injection of non-classical liberal thinking has set this topic back by decades.

CRT or any other totalitarian-lite approach is not going to work. The most successful societies on this planet are built on a foundation of classical liberalism. The most tolerant and inclusive places are found where classical liberalism has truly taken root. "But they are not perfect..." No, and classical liberalism allows for correction. There is no path to redemption in a middle way between CRT and classical liberalism. None. Zip. Zero. The two schools of thought are so at odds that there is no way to mix them.

 

[larsIU]

Western liberalism is the way to the solution because Western liberalism allows for a back and forth that eventually lands on a consensus to move forward. We were on that path until recently. The injection of non-classical liberal thinking has set this topic back by decades.

CRT or any other totalitarian-lite approach is not going to work. The most successful societies on this planet are built on a foundation of classical liberalism. The most tolerant and inclusive places are found where classical liberalism has truly taken root. "But they are not perfect..." No, and classical liberalism allows for correction. There is no path to redemption in a middle way between CRT and classical liberalism. None. Zip. Zero. The two schools of thought are so at odds that there is no way to mix them.

I'm not saying you have to mix them. But take affirmative action. This was a program that gave preferential treatment to traditionally marginalized groups. People FREAKED OUT. Why? Sure, it lacks the classically liberal tenet of egalitarianism but it was a pretty low key approach to giving a small stepping stone to certain minority groups. Was it done well? Probably not. But the mere idea of it caused enormous outcries. From guess who? Those who had traditionally benefitted under a prior system devoid of classically liberal egalitarianism. Go figure. And hell, we all agree education is probably the best way to lift people out of whatever station they find themselves in. But we couldn't even find a way to rationally discuss affirmative action in schools/colleges.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Well, as I noted, I'm not a fan of CRT but understand why it grew as a response to real institutional racism. It's creation in the 70's/80's wasn't far removed from that institutional racism. Sure, it may be rooted in events starting 400 years ago but those effects were certainly still very much felt in the 40's/50's/60's and after MLK and the civil rights movement.

Also, saying the way forward should be "peaceful and congenial" smacks of paternalism coming from the group that benefitted most from those 400 years of institutional racism. Confrontation is probably not the best idea either but the way forward is certainly somewhere in the middle, likely with very specific and pointed debate.

i don’t think a peaceful and congenial way to discuss issues is inconsistent with a specific and pointed debate. Your point about paternalism is well taken. I’d add arrogance and condescension to that. Any debate is good. But the process kinda falls apart with name calling, suppression, and now cancellation of those with whom you disagree. We all need open and mostly unfettered debate to thrive.

 

[hoot1]

Let us be honest with ourselves, we tend to measure the success of an individual or group by how well they do economically. If we discover a group such as people of color aren't doing as well as other groups economically, we then look for causes.

In looking for causes, it is easy to interject our political bias into the search. One might explain the problems facing blacks as being the failure of government programs such as welfare. Another might say it is the result of white suppression.

Injecting politics into a discussion of why a particular group is having trouble economically has been called playing the race card.

in my view, once the race card enters the picture whether the subject under discussion or being taught is CRT, SEL, or DEi then objectivity goes out the window.,

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

It always comes back to the same circular argument. If we tell people that the world is fair and just and the only thing that possibly matters is their effort, does that make it so? Is the world 100% fair and just? Can we make it more fair and just or do we just pretend it is and go on?

No one said the world is fair and just. They said there was equal opportunity HERE and you can make it if you make good choices. Very different conclusions.

Demanding an equal result through government and social compulsion is demented.

Math isn’t racist, but abusive and subjective “social justice” is. “Meet the new boss - same as the old boss.” Just a different color of sheet.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

For those who would defend CRT, please read this very accurate summary from Sullivan and think about whether you agree with it.

If you do not, there is no reason for you to defend CRT. CRT and its new progeny, "antiracism," are NOT the only way to combat racism or unfair racial disparities in the world. Indeed, as Sullivan and many others point out, it is Western liberalism itself that has done the best job historically of moving us in the right direction:

"Here is how critical theory defines itself in one of its central documents. It questions the very foundations of “Enlightenment rationality, legal equality and Constitutional neutrality.” It begins with the assertion that these are not ways to further knowledge and enlarge human freedom. They are rather manifestations of white power over non-white bodies. Formal legal equality, they argue, the promise of the American experiment, has never been actual equality, even as, over the centuries, it has been extended to everyone. It is, rather, a system to perpetuate inequality forever, which is the single and only reason racial inequality is still here.

Claims to truth are merely claims to power. That’s what people are asked to become “awake” to: that liberalism is a lie. As are its purported values. Free speech is therefore not always a way to figure out the truth; it is just another way in which power is exercised — to harm the marginalized. The idea that a theory can be proven or disproven by the empirical process is itself a white supremacist argument, denying the “lived experience” of members of identity groups that is definitionally true, whatever the “objective” facts say. And our minds and souls and institutions have been so marinated in white supremacist culture for so long, critical theorists argue, that the system can only be dismantled rather than reformed. The West’s idea of individual freedom — the very foundation of the American experiment — is, in their view, a way merely to ensure the permanent slavery of the non-white.

And nothing has really changed since the beginning: slavery, segregation, mass incarceration are just different words for the same experience of oppression. Our world is just a set of interlocking forms of oppressive structures, and has been since the West’s emergence."

 

[bawlmer]

Nice article by Sullivan. Thanks CoH.

I'm no CRT expert so I won't try to counter other than to say I'm not too worried that CRT is going to up-end western liberal thought. Bring it on, I say, and let's consider it. My opinion is that, at least the strain of CRT presented by Sullivan, will collapse upon itself.

 

[hoot1]

For those who would defend CRT, please read this very accurate summary from Sullivan and think about whether you agree with it.

If you do not, there is no reason for you to defend CRT. CRT and its new progeny, "antiracism," are NOT the only way to combat racism or unfair racial disparities in the world. Indeed, as Sullivan and many others point out, it is Western liberalism itself that has done the best job historically of moving us in the right direction:

"Here is how critical theory defines itself in one of its central documents. It questions the very foundations of “Enlightenment rationality, legal equality and Constitutional neutrality.” It begins with the assertion that these are not ways to further knowledge and enlarge human freedom. They are rather manifestations of white power over non-white bodies. Formal legal equality, they argue, the promise of the American experiment, has never been actual equality, even as, over the centuries, it has been extended to everyone. It is, rather, a system to perpetuate inequality forever, which is the single and only reason racial inequality is still here.

Claims to truth are merely claims to power. That’s what people are asked to become “awake” to: that liberalism is a lie. As are its purported values. Free speech is therefore not always a way to figure out the truth; it is just another way in which power is exercised — to harm the marginalized. The idea that a theory can be proven or disproven by the empirical process is itself a white supremacist argument, denying the “lived experience” of members of identity groups that is definitionally true, whatever the “objective” facts say. And our minds and souls and institutions have been so marinated in white supremacist culture for so long, critical theorists argue, that the system can only be dismantled rather than reformed. The West’s idea of individual freedom — the very foundation of the American experiment — is, in their view, a way merely to ensure the permanent slavery of the non-white.

And nothing has really changed since the beginning: slavery, segregation, mass incarceration are just different words for the same experience of oppression. Our world is just a set of interlocking forms of oppressive structures, and has been since the West’s emergence."

Brad, in somewhat agreeing with you, I sometimes consider the possibility that people of color whether or not being descendants of slaves are pawns in the game of politics.

Being pawns, they go from being heroes to being victims depending on the end game of the players.

What gets lost in the game is people of color are individuals just like people whose skin color is closer to white. Closer until we spend big bucks at a tanning parlor or vacationing at a beach.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Nice article by Sullivan. Thanks CoH.

I'm no CRT expert so I won't try to counter other than to say I'm not too worried that CRT is going to up-end western liberal thought. Bring it on, I say, and let's consider it. My opinion is that, at least the strain of CRT presented by Sullivan, will collapse upon itself.

You’re too rational. You’re not the Woke Mob. The Woke Mob won’t let their awful strain of CRT die. They’ve created an industry and their livelihoods depend on it.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Andrew Sullivan delivers Critical (race) theory a gut punch with this well written and well thought out piece. Read the whole thing. There is much to agree with here. I'll focus on the following:

The genius of liberalism in unleashing human freedom and the human mind changed us more in centuries than we had changed in hundreds of millennia. And at its core, there is the model of the single, interchangeable, equal citizen, using reason to deliberate the common good with fellow citizens. No ultimate authority; just inquiry and provisional truth. No final answer: an endless conversation. No single power, but many in competition.​

​

In this open-ended conversation, all can participate, conservatives and liberals, and will have successes and failures in their turn. What matters, both conservatives and liberals agree, is not the end result, but the liberal democratic, open-ended means. That shift — from specifying a single end to insisting only on playing by the rules — is the key origin of modern freedom.​

​

My central problem with critical theory is that it takes precise aim at these very core principles and rejects them. By rejecting them, in the otherwise noble cause of helping the marginalized, it is a very seductive and potent threat to liberal civilization.​

​

A.S. goes on to explain how CRT proponents cast free expression as a white construct which furthers oppression and racism. Why? Because the system was built by white westerners who do not have the lived experience of marginalized people

I'm always on the lookout for what the end game is for the CRT proponent. A.S. doesn't provide that either. Maybe they don't have one. A.S. does describe what he sees as the consequence of CRT whether intended or not:

I’m sorry but this matters. It’s not the only thing that matters right now, I know. But if we remove the corner-stone of liberal democracy — the concept of a free, interchangeable citizen using reason to deliberate the common good with her fellow citizens, regardless of any identity — then it is only a matter of time before it falls. This does not mean ignoring or overlooking the real struggles that African-Americans in particular have endured and continue to endure. It is to insist that we can do better — within a self-correcting, open liberal system — without surrendering to tribalism, race obsessiveness, or utopian attempts to force racial justice which violate the core guardrails against tyranny we rely upon for the survival of liberal democracy.​

​

I cannot be a stronger proponent of free expression and the benefits of free exchange of ideas. I further believe that the old saw about the life-span of empires or countries will be rendered irrelevant so long as the country or empire in question maintains in perpetuity the free exchange of ideas. A.S. nails it with his observations that our system requires endless conversations from a robust variety of sources. There is no final answer. There is no right answer. There is no settled science.. There is only a continual and ongoing conversation with free exchange of ideas.

This is why I am concerned about what I have seen in just the last few months. Government, business, media, education, entertainment, sports, and more are coalescing around set of ideas that many not only disagree with, but are prohibited through threats of reprisals of various kinds from even speaking about. The examples are many and A.S. mentions a few of them. We cannot go down that road hope to survive.

Finally, I love Sullivan's punch at the phrase "being on the right side of history". I thought that was a crock from the very first time I heard it--from you know who. Claiming that your position is the right side of history and somebody else's isn't, is simply an arrogant and smug way of saying "you are full of shit". I prefer the latter. It's much easier to understand.

​

That’s a very good piece by Sullivan.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

bullshit. Name names. Witnesses.

Another example of the Leftist view that a false claim is fine as long as it advances the narrative.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

Nice article by Sullivan. Thanks CoH.

I'm no CRT expert so I won't try to counter other than to say I'm not too worried that CRT is going to up-end western liberal thought. Bring it on, I say, and let's consider it. My opinion is that, at least the strain of CRT presented by Sullivan, will collapse upon itself.

Yes, but not until it does plenty of damage. Like 'defund the police'.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Another example of the Leftist view that a false claim is fine as long as it advances the narrative.

Which is equally matched by idiotic right wing views that advance narratives as well. The Left isn’t alone in that, they just have the better comms platform.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

Which is equally matched by idiotic right wing views that advance narratives as well. The Left isn’t alone in that, they just have the better comms platform.

The difference is that the loonies on the far right tend to be true believer conspiracy types, while many on the left, including their MSM allies, know they are lying and are driven by their political agenda to stand by their lies.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

The difference is that the loonies on the far right tend to be true believer conspiracy types, while many on the left, including their MSM allies, know they are lying and are driven by their political agenda to stand by their lies.

I don’t think that’s true at all

 

[Marvin the Martian]

For the many CRT lovers starting threads every day on the subject I will help out, West Wing sort of covered it all for you.

 

[amandaturciya]

For those who would defend CRT, please read this very accurate summary from Sullivan and think about whether you agree with it.

If you do not, there is no reason for you to defend CRT. CRT and its new progeny, "antiracism," are NOT the only way to combat racism or unfair racial disparities in the world. Indeed, as Sullivan and many others point out, it is Western liberalism itself that has done the best job historically of moving us in the right direction:

"Here is how critical theory defines itself in one of its central documents. It questions the very foundations of “Enlightenment rationality, legal equality and Constitutional neutrality.” It begins with the assertion that these are not ways to further knowledge and enlarge human freedom. They are rather manifestations of white power over non-white bodies. Formal legal equality, they argue, the promise of the American experiment, has never been actual equality, even as, over the centuries, it has been extended to everyone. It is, rather, a system to perpetuate inequality forever, which is the single and only reason racial inequality is still here.

Claims to truth are merely claims to power. That’s what people are asked to become “awake” to: that liberalism is a lie. As are its purported values. Free speech is therefore not always a way to figure out the truth; it is just another way in which power is exercised — to harm the marginalized. The idea that a theory can be proven or disproven by the empirical process is itself a white supremacist argument, denying the “lived experience” of members of identity groups that is definitionally true, whatever the “objective” facts say. And our minds and souls and institutions have been so marinated in white supremacist culture for so long, critical theorists argue, that the system can only be dismantled rather than reformed. The West’s idea of individual freedom — the very foundation of the American experiment — is, in their view, a way merely to ensure the permanent slavery of the non-white. You have to fight for your rights and I recommend you read https://samploon.com/free-essays/rosa-parks/ which describes the struggle of one woman who changed history. I recommend you to open and get acquainted with this resource, there is a lot of interesting and valuable information for students. There are also professional writers who can advise you on various issues.

And nothing has really changed since the beginning: slavery, segregation, mass incarceration are just different words for the same experience of oppression. Our world is just a set of interlocking forms of oppressive structures, and has been since the West’s emergence."

Thank you very much for the short summary from Sullivan.
I'm no CRT expert too, but I want to delve into the issue.
I apologize if I violated the rules of the forum and bumped the topic, which is a bit outdated.
The topic still remains relevant.
Update: I have read more articles from Sullivan and am increasingly changing my mind about how the world works.
Thank you again!

 

[mushroomgod_1]

Andrew Sullivan delivers Critical (race) theory a gut punch with this well written and well thought out piece. Read the whole thing. There is much to agree with here. I'll focus on the following:

The genius of liberalism in unleashing human freedom and the human mind changed us more in centuries than we had changed in hundreds of millennia. And at its core, there is the model of the single, interchangeable, equal citizen, using reason to deliberate the common good with fellow citizens. No ultimate authority; just inquiry and provisional truth. No final answer: an endless conversation. No single power, but many in competition.​

​

In this open-ended conversation, all can participate, conservatives and liberals, and will have successes and failures in their turn. What matters, both conservatives and liberals agree, is not the end result, but the liberal democratic, open-ended means. That shift — from specifying a single end to insisting only on playing by the rules — is the key origin of modern freedom.​

​

My central problem with critical theory is that it takes precise aim at these very core principles and rejects them. By rejecting them, in the otherwise noble cause of helping the marginalized, it is a very seductive and potent threat to liberal civilization.​

​

A.S. goes on to explain how CRT proponents cast free expression as a white construct which furthers oppression and racism. Why? Because the system was built by white westerners who do not have the lived experience of marginalized people

I'm always on the lookout for what the end game is for the CRT proponent. A.S. doesn't provide that either. Maybe they don't have one. A.S. does describe what he sees as the consequence of CRT whether intended or not:

I’m sorry but this matters. It’s not the only thing that matters right now, I know. But if we remove the corner-stone of liberal democracy — the concept of a free, interchangeable citizen using reason to deliberate the common good with her fellow citizens, regardless of any identity — then it is only a matter of time before it falls. This does not mean ignoring or overlooking the real struggles that African-Americans in particular have endured and continue to endure. It is to insist that we can do better — within a self-correcting, open liberal system — without surrendering to tribalism, race obsessiveness, or utopian attempts to force racial justice which violate the core guardrails against tyranny we rely upon for the survival of liberal democracy.​

​

I cannot be a stronger proponent of free expression and the benefits of free exchange of ideas. I further believe that the old saw about the life-span of empires or countries will be rendered irrelevant so long as the country or empire in question maintains in perpetuity the free exchange of ideas. A.S. nails it with his observations that our system requires endless conversations from a robust variety of sources. There is no final answer. There is no right answer. There is no settled science.. There is only a continual and ongoing conversation with free exchange of ideas.

This is why I am concerned about what I have seen in just the last few months. Government, business, media, education, entertainment, sports, and more are coalescing around set of ideas that many not only disagree with, but are prohibited through threats of reprisals of various kinds from even speaking about. The examples are many and A.S. mentions a few of them. We cannot go down that road hope to survive.

Finally, I love Sullivan's punch at the phrase "being on the right side of history". I thought that was a crock from the very first time I heard it--from you know who. Claiming that your position is the right side of history and somebody else's isn't, is simply an arrogant and smug way of saying "you are full of shit". I prefer the latter. It's much easier to understand.

​

​

The concept that there is no single, correct, permanent answer to any complex issue is also the core value of federalism and separation of powers, both of which the Leftists despise.