2/ “CRT teaches x, y, z, so it is actually incompatible; but we don’t’ need CRT to oppose racism anyhow, and the bad folks are illegitimately calling everything CRT in order to avoid dealing with racism.”
3/ While I get the draw to this latter position, so long as it is based on plain slander of CRT scholars—incessantly claiming that they teach what they do not and deeply distorting the arguments based on pure ignorance and/or malice—then it is just as unchristian and
4/ counterproductive to antiracism and just plain basic Christian morality as those in the SBC you pretend to be critiquing. Intellectual honesty should still be a Christian value. Not misrepresenting fellow image bearers should still be a Christina value.
5/ Not slandering scholars, even if they are not Christians, who have nevertheless dedicated their lives to serving the vulnerable, should still be a Christian value. I mean, have you even spoken in real life with the scholars you are lying about?
6/ I have, and they wonder why you all say such ignorant and malicious things about them. And it really is malicious and unacceptable, and you aren't actually distinguishing yourself from those charlatans in the SBC you think you are opposing.
7/ Enough with it. Just quit talking about CRT until you’ve studied it enough to quit positing lies and absurdities. Or, if that's not your thing, maybe start by getting in dialogue with the very people you’re willing to throw under the bus for your own gain.
8/ That’s what we call LIVING compatibly with Christianity.
(I'm beginning to wonder if that's even a value anymore in some quarters; the premium seems entirely on so-called "worldview" compatibility and other such 20th century nonsense.)
9/ And please, folks, quit telling me that these folks have good intentions and are really trying to oppose racism. That may be, but they're also lying, distorting, mischaracterizing, and frankly delusional as to how to understand and address American racism.
10/ They LITERALLY condemn the tools given them to do it, thumbing their noses at God's providence and common grace, all the while refusing to understand what they are even talking about, not loving neighbor enough to research before condemning.
11/ Do non-Christians not deserve basic neighbor love? So I frankly don't care what their intentions are. They are doing harm, and, it seems to me, for their own gain, not out of genuine antiracist concern. They should just say, "I don't know CRT that well, but I'm committed to
12/ learning and opposing racism as it actually exists in Church and in society," rather than thinking they're gonna play a coherent middle by condemning CRT with flimsy, ignorant, malicious justification.
Now I'm just rambling, sorry. Just increasingly frustrated.
13/13 Anyhow, just sayin'. It's becoming exhausting to hear this nonsense.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
He comes to the EXACT OPPOSITE of the rational conclusion!
If the SAME disparate circumstances of marginalized peoples that existed under Jim Crow persist, now by means of facially "race-neutral" standards, then the burden of proof is on those who would justify these standards!
Folks ask me all the time, “But couldn’t it be past racism that is responsible for current disparities rather than systemic racism?” This, I’d argue, shows that the meaning of “systemic racism” is being missed altogether.
Sorry, another long thread:
2/ I’d argue that “systemic racism” could be defined as any historic and/or current system of ideas, social philosophies, institutions, policies, and practices which have created and/or continue to perpetuate the SUBORDINATED CIRCUMSTANCES and INFERIOR CONDITIONS of historically
3/ contingent, socially constructed, racialized people-groups. (I think Vernellia R. Randal’s is pretty good as well, viz., “polices, practices, and procedures of institutions that have a disproportionately negative effect on racial minorities’ access to and quality of goods,
In my opinion, I think it is important to recognize that there are a few different groups (I’ll suggest 4) of people at odds in this whole Critical Race Theory (CRT) debate in the Church.
This is a long thread, I apologize, but I truly think we need to make these distinctions:
2/ The 1st group are just your run of the mill racists. You know the crowd. They are loud and all over the internet.
3/ They believe that slavery and Jim Crow are ancient history, the racists were the KKK types who are now hard to find, the sexual revolution and Great Society—even the CRM itself—destroyed the Black family and led to degenerate behaviors that explain the VAST racial disparity
Given that social, legal, and economic systems do not just sprout from the ground naturally like plants, but are human created historical and contingent artifacts, then we must necessarily offer moral justifications for the way things are. 1/
2/ Now, given that our own system has produced/allowed for/maintained VAST and ever increasing inequalities—some with hundreds of billions and MANY MANY more completely broke—we either need to show the moral justification for our chosen system or change it.
3/ A very common justification (NOT THE ONLY POSSIBLE) is that our system simply rewards the smartest and hardest working individuals, therefore huge disparities in income and wealth are fully justified as they reflect individual merit.
"Racism is both overt and covert. It takes two, closely related forms: individual whites acting against individual blacks, and acts by the total white community against the black community. 1/
2/ "We call these individual racism and institutional racism. The first consists of overt acts by individuals, which cause death, injury or the violent destruction of property. This type can be recorded by television cameras; it can frequently be observed in the process of
3/ "commission. The second type is less overt, far more subtle, less identifiable in terms of specific individuals committing the acts. But it is no less destructive of human life. The second type originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society,
Was rereading a section of Kendi's How to be an Antiracist and was reminded of this section on personal responsibility:
"Indeed, I was irresponsible in high school. It makes antiracist sense to talk about the personal irresponsibility of individuals like me of all races. 1/
2/ "I screwed up. I could have studied harder. But some of my White friends could have studied harder, too, and their failures and irresponsibility didn’t somehow tarnish their race.
3/ "… How do we think about my young self, the C or D student, in antiracist terms? The truth is that I should be critiqued as a student—I was undermotivated and distracted and undisciplined. In other words, a bad student. But I shouldn’t be critiqued as a bad Black student.