Anyone who thinks critical race theory teaches that white people are inherently racist knows nothing about critical race theory. CRT is not about personal racism at all and has nothing to do with white people, as people, in terms of bias. It's about systems and structures (1)...
The whole point of CRT is to explore how racial inequity and white institutional dominance can remain such ubiquitous realities even w/ reductions over time in overt racial hostility and even in the presence of civil rights victories (2)...
By the way, these are the same questions conservatives ask, but their answer is: it's bc there's something wrong with Black people. They don't mind the question CRT asks. They just don't like answers that point back at the system and society. They want to blame Black people...
So rather than debate the topic in good faith, they seek to any discussion of racism, by labeling it "anti-white" by definition. Which is absurd. In doing so they have adopted the mantra of literal Nazi groups, who have long said "anti-racism is anti-white." Congrats y'all...
You have now made common narrative cause with open fascists and white supremacists, but by all means, tell me again how we're the racists?
And ironically, if you say anti-racism is anti-white you are, ipso facto, saying that white and racism go together. Once you take the anti- off each side of the equation, what's left? Hmmm, fascinating isn't it?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Brief thread on Critical Race Theory: The most absurd criticism of CRT is the idea that it says white people are inherently racist. For any group to have "inherent" tendencies, that group must exist as an organic entity, but CRT rejects race as a scientific category altogether...
Whites cannot be inherently racist because whites, as such, do not exist as an entity with an inherent essence--at least, according to CRT. The folks who think race is real and groups have inherent tendencies are right-wingers who embrace The Bell Curve, not leftists (2)...
Whites, as such, did not exist until the 1600s. Whiteness was socially constructed for the purpose of aggregating European peoples under one umbrella for the sake of exercising domination over those not in the club (3)...
A few thoughts re: the uproar concerning the Chauvin juror who -- it is claimed -- lied about not having attended any anti-police brutality rallies. First, given the way Chauvin's attorney asked the question in voir dire, his answer would not likely be convictable as perjury (1)
He went to DC for the commemoration march of the 1963 March on Washington called by @TheRevAl, which was not a march about police brutality or George Floyd per se. That said, the question was surely intended to cover an event like that, so it may result in a reversal (2)...
...which is awful bc that conviction would have been obtained without that juror on the panel. There is no evidence he pushed others into their decisions FFS... But here's the question I have, which no one is asking...(3)
The folks screaming about Critical Race Theory being racist against white people are the same folks who accepted The Bell Curve, which says Blacks are inherently less intelligent, and still keep Charles Murray in their good graces...(1)
To them, noting the centrality of racism to the American experiment (a sociological judgment) is more racist than claiming a biological/genetic basis for racial inequity even though the latter is literally the original meaning of the word racism. But what do you expect? (2)...
...After all, one of the guys who first made this into an issue while Trump was president works with The Discovery Institute, which thinks it is possible (and worth debating) that perhaps the Earth is only 10,000 years old, so...yeah...(3)...
GOP denials of America's racism are rooted in a rhetoric of "progress" (as in, look how far we've come). But remember, these folks say MAGA which means the old days weren't that bad. And what progress was made had nothing to do w/people like them...(1) timjwise.medium.com/dont-worry-be-…
The right opposed the civil rights movement (National Review, the entire conservative movement), and the fact that moderate GOP lawmakers joined w/Northern Dems to pass Civil Rts laws doesn't acquit them...(2)
Finally, what progress has been made is never fixed. It can be taken back and the right is trying, by attacking voting access, weakening anti-discrimination laws, attacking affirmative action, etc. (3)...
1/ To those defending the shooting of Ma'Khia Bryant bc she had a knife, in many other countries where cops don't have guns (or rarely use them) there are knives. The same scene would have to have been dealt with differently elsewhere. How? And why can't we do that?
2/ Non-lethal force would have been used elsewhere, but in the US we just sign off on the state killing people, especially Black folks, but too often whites too. Why? People who are endangering others elsewhere are dealt with differently. Seriously, why can't we do that?
3/ Yes, it's possible that in those other countries, not being able to respond w/lethal force might allow a stabbing until the person is subdued. Same in Columbus. But the stabbing would unlikely be fatal while the bullet is. With a different response, NO one has to die...
So while folks are telling us how the Chauvin verdict proves change is here, please note: the Columbus PD killed a 15 yr old girl #MakiyahBryant today. But they didn't even arrest any of the OSU students who were flipping cars and tearing shit up after a damned exhibition game.
Correction to the spelling name of the young woman killed by Columbus Police today. Her name is Ma'Khia Bryant. I used the early hashtag that had it wrong. Wanted to clear it up. Let's say her name and hold up her family as they fight for justice. #makhiabryant
And let me be clear, I am referring to Ma'Khia as a young woman out of respect, but at 15, she was a child.