Thread by @SamRochadotcom

THREAD

I thank @Kinder_Cons for his astute comments on my recent remarks published by @brianfraga, and especially for his measured criticism. I want to reply with a small clarification, but I will first post the original post and the notes to follow, with my reply thereafter.

Here are my remarks contextualized by @brianfraga: patheos.com/blogs/onthecat…

Here is @Kinder_Cons's response: kinderconservative.substack.com/p/a-brief-note…

My first reply to @Kinder_Cons is simply to note that I sent this to Brian in my DMs within a minutes, having the thoughts on my mind following a productive chat with @roderickgraham the night before and a livestream on race and US Catholics for @Where_Peter_is that evening.

My notes in dialogue with @mfjlewis, @MRibnek, and @baileyhallprop are much more developed and are posted here:

Having noted that context, in part to admit to its slap-dash and still-developing nature, I would like to gently clarify the very limited scope of my remarks as a rejoinder to my brother, @Kinder_Cons.

My point of emphasis was not to offer an intellectual "overview" of CRT. I was specifically and only trying to present constructive evidence that could substitute for Barron's claim about the *roots* of CRT. My two points are dual roots of CRT, not CRT itself in full.

When the specificity of "roots" becomes clear, I think we also see that my point was not so much to refocus our attention from Europe to the Americas, so much as to point out that the critical theory of race from Du Bois and the Critical Race Theory for legal studies from Bell...

...do not grow from theoretical roots. Both ideas emerge directly out of American legal and juridical language as it pertained to the rule of that law over Black people. This is not a theory that can be idealized into an ism or ology so much as one that emerges from particulars.

This means that while Du Bois and Bell were well-read and both taught and studied at Harvard, their respective critical theory of race and what became known as the foundations for CRT are not "rooted" in those sources but, instead, in American laws relevant to the color line.

This constrained dual point shows that Barron's claim is not only a mistake of intellectual history or the influence of ideas, it is a far worse misunderstanding of the real "roots" that ground the Black intellectual tradition and saying otherwise is, therefore, fiction.

For what I intended to show and say in light of what Barron asserted, I think my focus on the "roots" of CRT through a dual account and Barron's account lacking any evidence whatsoever (and also missing the entire tradition's real roots), I think my point is hasty but sound.

I agree with @Kinder_Cons that much more remains to be said about CRT as a whole, especially as it has developed, and that there are other distinctions to be drawn as well. Most of all, I thank him for his careful and informed engagement. And thanks to all of you for reading!