Ask Lemmy

Listen to Mark Milley: https://www.nbcnews.com/video/gen-milley-defends-studying-critical-race-theory-in-the-military-at-house-hearing-115349061782

Read the book. The book itself is what is making the argument for CRT, not a tweet or lemmy summary. Read. Read primary sources. Read books. Think for yourself and don't expect to be fed answers on how to think or feel all the time.

It's actually a bit ironic, because CRT is viewed by many White Americans as a theory which demonizes them; but CRT also defines how racism has harmed poor white people in the past and continues to do so today.

CRT defines the biggest winners of Racism in America as being wealthy white folks. According to CRT, Racism as we know it today, was created as a means to take advantage of poor whites. Rich plantation owners recognized slavery caused great economic harm to poorer whites who did not own slaves. So a solution to stop revolt was to create this system of Race so that poor whites would remain divided from black slaves, and not work together to retaliate.

CRT also claims that this is still occuring today. Racism continues to divide poor white people from poor people of color so that they don't work together to fight against Injustice.

Imagine a hundred runners entering an insanely long footrace. Before the race starts, the official says that due to his complexion, one runner will start running at the second gunshot, and the other runners will begin at the first gunshot. The darker skinned runner contests, but those are the rules and if he wants to race, he must follow them.

BLAM

The palest runners are off and running while the other one anticipates the second gunshot. He patiently waits, but it doesn't come. After ten minutes, the runner complains to the official, but he repeats that these are the rules, and if you just wait patiently, it'll be your turn. After an hour the crowd is outraged by the injustice and begin to protest.

BLAM

The official fires the second shot in order to deescalate the situation and prevent the stadium from being torn apart. The runner is off and he is determined to gain as much ground as possible as the other runners.

At the end of the day, the runners meet up at a checkpoint to rest before the next section of the race. When they announce the official times, the darker skinned man is 50 minutes behind the other runners. He mentions to the officials that he had to wait an hour to start, and that he would have had a better time than many of them if they had started at the same time.

Fine, they say, not wanting another scene like they had at the starting line, "from now on, all runners start at the same time." That's great! So, can I deduct an hour from my time?

WHAT!? WE ALREADY CHANGED THE RULES TO MAKE IT EQUAL. EVERYBODY STARTS AT THE SAME TIME! AND NOW YOU WANT MORE? THE OTHER RUNNERS DIDN'T NEED ANY TIME DEDUCTIONS!

I now see I went too heavy on the caps, but I'm not typing it again.

Anyway, DEI is the one hour time deduction. It's making up for holding them back for so long while everyone else was sprinting ahead. But, those other runners, they were so busy running that they don't know how long it took for that second gunshot to go off. All they see is a runner with a mediocre time getting a 1 hour deduction which moves him to the top 3. The guy getting bumped to fourth is REALLY going to feel cheated, and resent the system that gave that guy an hour just because of his skin color.

I think it's the equity vs equality thing that is most problematic. Giving people a bigger slice of the pie for being themselves undermines typical economic incentives and breeds resentment. In my opinion everyone should be given the same opportunities but they need to demonstrate themselves as the most capable candidate to get a job/promotion or whatever for the system to work.

I see it as a "I don't see color" kind of thing. You may be able to see it as "just" a class war, but people who may be a different race, or disabled, etc., can't do that because those factors can change how you're treated. Saying we should ignore it or rebrand it as a class war is disregarding the reprocussions that race plays in the class war. What communities get funding? What communities have good schools? What communities have food deserts? Who gets promoted to leadership?

Before these things came to be, America was very much class-war only in my opinion, which is why boomer white Americans did so well. They were all seen as the same community, so raising them up was raising them all up. So they had Veterans benefits and programs after the war to help them get housing and education. Unions protected their members. But those programs didn't always extend to POC, if at all. That's why we have to keep an eye on it. It's not just class that affects people, and not talking about it allows the majority to pretend it isn't happening, or is a minor issue. I think it also facilities the silencing of minorities as their issues seem "fringe" or like complaints.

The system was not built for a lot of people, and we have to keep reminding people of that. Because what's going on in the US is showing that. They're worried about anti-Christians and immigrants, transgenders, etc. Even if those people are also poor, that won't save them if we just see class. A middle class, transgender woman who may have been a "good guy" is now an enemy be cause of their gender identity alone. A black man being followed in a store is not being followed for class reasons. People with disabilities having trouble just existing are not having that trouble (solely) because of class.

Getting rid of DEI/CRT makes the loudest voice everyone's voice. And that person is usually not looking out for us.

proven multiple times and confirmed by multiple studies: communities that welcome immigrants have higher education rates, better incomes, higher productivity, and lower crime than communities based on exclusion/exclusivity/isolation/separation

conservatives use “CRT” and “DEI” to sow polarization because they know even they’d get blowback if they admitted they were just anti-empathy/pro-hatred/anti-equality

You’re writing as if CRT were a set of policies instead of an academic discipline—that’s why everyone is asking you to clarify what you think it is before they reply. It’s like trying to respond to someone criticizing “quantum theory” whose argument is based on the economic effects of nuclear power plants.

I'm not sure what Cathode Ray Tubes have to do with any of this.

Good on OP for seeking challenges to their existing view points and being open to changing them upon compelling enough thoughts. In a genuine way no less.

The facts are that black Americans are worse off than other groups in almost every way we can measure. There are two competing theories to explain this.

1-the systems of our society are biased against black people. That's Systemic-Racism. 2-black people are inferior to everyone else. That's racism, original recipe.

How are these systems biased against black people? That's what the field of CRT seeks to answer.

Cathode Ray Tubes were just the best solution for the time. We got more efficient later.

First off, CRT is a red herring. It's an extremely niche framework for historical analysis and egalitarianism which is irrelevant outside academic contexts and only gained ground due to a racist asshole.

When it comes to DEI I think that your heart is in the right place - this is all about economic justice and if there were better ways to account for that it'd be an excellent thing to correct for (though, imo, the better correction would be to ensure all children had a genuinely equal chance at success). Unfortunately, because America has a long history of racism, race and poverty are strongly correlated.

The other half of DEI is that people tend to hire like. It's a deep social flaw but we need to acknowledge it - white men will tend to hire white men, a company composed entirely of black women will tend to hire black women... we have studies. Most entrenched wealth is held by white men and so white men have an inherent advantage in employment.

The last thing I'd highlight is that a rising tide raises all ships - your assumption that immigration causes an expansion of poverty usually hasn't been born out. In capitalism more people means more labor means more innovation means more wealth - there are some limits around resources but we're not near any hard limits in that regard.

I understand and sympathize with where your coming from. I don't have all the counter arguments, but one that stuck with me while I was devils advocating it with two of my friends stuck with me. (Mind you, I'm drunk on a Friday night at 3 AM, so just posting this before I forget to do it tomorrow).

One of your arguments (not all!) is built on an opposing side abusing the cultural impact of CRT/DEI. However, that can be applied as a premise to a slew of other political efforts with the same mechanics where the singling out of a group can be twisted into discrimination of an adjacent group:

• Americans with Disabilities Act
• Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) for Alaskans
• Shelters and Services Program for Immigrants
• Any policies surrounding Native Americans

In all the above programs, one could make the case that there are adjacent groups that do not, but maybe should, receive those benefits. CRT/DEI just is an easier target to gather people around. It doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's just the most prominent and easily targetable policy.

All that doesn't invalidate CRT/DEI or any of the other policies, and even with political opposition one could still argue for their benefit. So, my point is this: Bad actors abusing and misrepresenting a program that focuses on specific groups is not an argument against that policy. If it didn't exist, they'd latch on to something else. So you're letting a policy be ruined, not based on its merits, but on how others can twist a narrative around it.

Again, you have made other points that I'm not addressing at all in this argument. I'll let others argue against those.

CRT and DEI are misrepresented by both the left and right. They make more sense when you look at them without the point of view of 14 year old Redditors or 400 year old dinosaurs.

I'm not USAian enough to understand all this, but let me just say, the problem is the rich. Them stealing all the money leaves little for the rest, and due to the lack of education, the rest fights each other over what's left instead of uniting against rich fucks. Painting CRT, DEI, feminism, trans-rights, anti-immigration, etc. as the issue are just ways to divide the have-nots.

Divide and conquer.

This is a great question to ask in a .ml community as I think they will be able to contextualize this a bit better for you, and I would be interested in what they say too. Cause I agree, I think identity politics (which I think is what you're getting at here) is used especially by the ruling class as a way to look nominally progressive (or anti-progressive) and make people feel like they have a real choice in politics, but is ultimately damaging both to its own goals and to the overall political consciousness, in the ways you noted, by divorcing them from the material realities that create and perpetuate these divisions for all people in society. I think that in either direction, they are pushed as a means to distract from the root causes of those issues (which is all the better for a ruling class that benefits from this social order), which if addressed would be a much more equitable way of dealing with them and far more difficult for criticism to take hold.

I think people would see that we have far more in common than not if we weren't constantly pitted against each other to compete for resources that are only made scarce for the sake of profit and austerity.

CRT though, in actuality, is precisely what you are talking about. It is a school of thought that analyzes racial inequalities in the context of history and critiqueing the ways that they are perpetuated in our society. It became a buzzword because conservative media made it into one totally divorced from its original context.

If you want us to talk you out of your position we need you to describe what exactly you think CRT and DEI actually are in your own words.

If you can invest your time in explaining those things as you understand them then I am willing to discuss it with you.

If you copy paste from the net I will call you out and take that as a hostile response.

I've no idea what CRT is but I'd like to simply answer why DEI kinda things are needed separate from poverty alleviation.

Axiomatically, I want best person for a given job and a level playing field for all. This is the kind of society I want to build.

Say there is universal basic income or universal basic services. Yay, now anyone can get free education or wait until they get job they aspire too, etc.

Do we progress towards the kind of society mentioned previously? Likely not because there are other factors like network, culture and habits that shape how we/others view us and our capabilities. Hence, mentors, counseling, special training, etc are needed.

So like that environmental justice database musk just shut down, that analyzes things like pollution, asthma and other health impacts, death rates, etc? So environmental cleanup efforts can focus on those who are most affected? Apparent it’s crt or DEI or woke or something since those most affected tend to be disproportionately non-white. It can’t be the “merit” of being most impacted by pollution

Democracy is not just about voting. Democracy is not just about freedom to debate political topics. Democracy is also about being actualized in a way which allows you to advocate for yourself and your interests. This works both from a idealistic and functional perspective - egalitarian democracy is the "right" thing to do, but it also serves to help identify and remedy issues in specific communities before they become bigger problems.

The core thesis for progressive liberalism is that for a democracy to function properly, we should identify injustice and work to reduce it, so that marginalized communities have better access to these democratic primitives than they would otherwise. The idea is that this creates a proactive framework for dealing with problems, rather than a reactive one. Otherwise the Democratic process seems cursed to leap from big crisis to big crisis without any real strategy for working at smaller scales.