Since everyone's back to invoking Dr. King against antiracism, let's keep looking at what he actually wrote. Foe example:
"Indeed, one of the great problems that the Negro confronts is his lack of power. From the old plantations of the South to the newer ghettos of the North, 1/
2/ "the Negro has been confined to a life of voicelessness and powerlessness. Stripped of the right to make decisions concerning his life and destiny, he has been subject to the authoritarian and sometimes whimsical decisions of the white power structure. The plantation and the
3/ "ghetto were created by those who had power both to confine those who had no power and to perpetuate their powerlessness. The problem of transforming the ghetto is, therefore, a problem of power—a confrontation between the forces of power demanding change and the forces of
4/ "power dedicated to preserving the status quo. … Power, properly understood, is the ability to achieve purpose. It is the strength required to bring about social, political or economic changes. In this sense power is not only desirable but necessary in order to implement the
5/5 "demands of love and justice. … There is nothing essentially wrong with power. The problem is that in America power is unequally distributed."
*for
Typo, right out the gate.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Here are some broadly accepted commonplaces, drawn from CRT scholars' own answers to the question, presented in logical progression.
A thread:
1. Race is Socially Constructed
Race is not a natural, biological, “out there” entity such that it exists independently of law and society. Rather, it is a product of human social interaction, a construction of social reality. Further, race and racial categories were ...
... historically created to justify and maintain social hierarchy, slavery, and other forms of group-based exploitation, as well as distribute protections, rights, citizenship, privileges, access, advantages, and disadvantages.
I love how he ignorantly invokes Dr. King, and then in the next breath COMPLETELY ignores Dr. King's message, especially as in his Letter From Birmingham Jail. Typical Spirituality of the Church racist complicity.
And the footnotes for this "difficult" topic? DiAngelo, DiAngelo, DiAngelo, DiAngelo, DiAngelo, Kendi. Hahahaha! Great research! Pretty much studied the whole topic in detail!
In 1883, Frederick Douglass put together a "colored" convention. The White folk tried the old reverse racism claim on him. In his response, we see an early refutation to both the "reverse racism" claim and a reaction to "color-blindness" in general.
A longish thread: 1/
2/ "We are asked not only why hold a convention, but, with emphasis, why hold a colored convention? Why keep up this odious distinction between citizens of a common country and thus give countenance to the color line? It is argued that, if colored men hold conventions, based
3/ "upon color, white men may hold white conventions based upon color, and thus keep open the chasm between one and the other class of citizens, and keep alive a prejudice which we profess to deplore. We state the argument against us fairly and forcibly, and will answer it
2/ pernicious influence of CRT. In reality, this folks have just become aware of the racism in the church and denomination, have pressed back on it, and ultimately leave after no change. Now, the folks who are still there think, "why are these people going on about racism? I'm
3/ not a racist, my church is not racist, and I don't even know any real racists." Upon investigation, they realize that this brothers and sisters leaving don't define or understand racism as they do--as personal hatred toward someone because of their skin color. So, where did
2/ It is important to me that no article written on race was accepted by any of the journals, and no journals focused on race or Critical Race Theory accepted any articles.
Second, of the articles accepted, the majority claimed to contain independent research, which would
3/ rightly be of interest to any academic field no matter how silly the attendant conclusions. But more important to our purposes, why was the discovery of this “hoax” such an embarrassment to the journals who bit?
a. We do not know the exact character of this “slavery.”
b. The actions of the saints recorded are not prima facie normative.
c. God often allowed for actions and institutions which were contrary to His own moral Law and natural law, though ...
... He regulated them with the end to (1) diminish their abuses, then (2) eliminate the practices altogether (see marriage/divorce in OT vs. Jesus in NT; “because of the hardness of their hearts, Moses allowed it…”).