This is disingenuous.
It equivocayes between Critical Race *Theorist* and Critical Race *Theory*
Diangelo absolutley uses Critical Race Theory and says she does.
These guys all play the same game of "hide the ball" with the parts of CRT they do not want people to see
It equivocayes between Critical Race *Theorist* and Critical Race *Theory*
Diangelo absolutley uses Critical Race Theory and says she does.
These guys all play the same game of "hide the ball" with the parts of CRT they do not want people to see
https://twitter.com/MeditarMestizo/status/1362758318029238278
DiAngelo does work in "whiteness studies" which run parallel to CRT amd makes use of CRT. The difference is focus. One focuses on *race* the other on whitness specifically...but they have massive overlap in terms of the underlying assumptions and worldview 
This is why we get papers like this one which link the two.
Saying whitness studies and CRT are seperate is is like saying northern baptists and southern baptsits are seperate. In a sense they are, but they have nearly identical views.
Its the narcisim of small differences
Saying whitness studies and CRT are seperate is is like saying northern baptists and southern baptsits are seperate. In a sense they are, but they have nearly identical views.
Its the narcisim of small differences
Compered to each other they are a little different. But put them both in a room amd they have way more in common with each others theology then they have with, say, Hindus.
CRT and whitness studies both make use of postmodernism, and both make use of Critical Theory
CRT and whitness studies both make use of postmodernism, and both make use of Critical Theory
To pretend that these things are totally unrelated is not fair or honest.
It's like when someone says they don't believe in God and you try to discredit them by showing they don't know about some obscure and subtle point that a theologian msde in the 16th century.
It's like when someone says they don't believe in God and you try to discredit them by showing they don't know about some obscure and subtle point that a theologian msde in the 16th century.
If the major point about the central thing of Christianity *GOD* is rejected, some subtle point about how to interpret a geneology isn't going to matter because that person rejects God to begin with.
They can reject Christianity without having memorize your particular catechism
They can reject Christianity without having memorize your particular catechism
Showing atheists you know more about the bible proves nothing.
Showing me that you also know whiteness studies has technical differences with CRT but maintains many of the same outlooks and assumptions also proves nothing.
Showing me that you also know whiteness studies has technical differences with CRT but maintains many of the same outlooks and assumptions also proves nothing.
If you want to bring in Postmodern scholarship abd Critical Theory you should say that, and then lets have that debate.
But dont play the game where you try to argue that I'm not finely parsing you constellation of disciplines. I reject your worldview.
Lets have that discussion
But dont play the game where you try to argue that I'm not finely parsing you constellation of disciplines. I reject your worldview.
Lets have that discussion
Also typos abound in this thread
I wrote fast, on a phone.
Sorry🤷♂️
I wrote fast, on a phone.
Sorry🤷♂️
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
