Time for a @wokal_distance-style thread on two subjects: 1) the claim that #CriticalRaceTheory teaches that "all white people are complicit in racism" and 2) whether CRT scholars are always honest brokers.
First, does CRT claim that "all white people are complicit in racism"? 1/
I often hear it claimed that CRT doesn't teach anything like "all white people are complicit in racism." However, Delgado and Stefancic's CRT: An Introduction is *the* classic introductory text on CRT and it includes the following statement: 2/
"many critical race theorists and social scientists hold that racism is pervasive, systemic, and deeply ingrained. If we take this perspective, then no white member of society seems quite so innocent.” - Delgado and Stefancic, CRT: An Introduction, p. 91 3/
"But wait," you object, "they said 'many CRTs'! Not 'all CRTs'! So not all CRTs think that racism is 'pervasive, etc.!"
But that leads to my 2nd point. Do "many" but not "all" CRTs think this way? No. At best, that claim is misleading. At worst, it's disingenuous. 4/
The claim that racism is normal, permanent, and pervasive is a *core tenet* of CRT. Indeed, many CRTs list it as the *first* core tenet of CRT.
For example, here is Delgado *himself* writing with Matsuda, Lawrence, and Crenshaw, who all helped found CRT: 5/
"critical race scholars have identified the following defining elements [of CRT]: 1. CRT recognizes that racism is endemic to American life...federalism, privacy, traditional values [and] established property interests...serve as vessels of racial subordination" (WtW, p. 6) 6/
Here is Yosso: "For the field of education, [Solorzano] identified five tenets of CRT.. 1. CRT starts from the premise that race and racism are central, endemic, permanent and a fundamental part of.. explaining how US society functions" (in Dixson, CRT in Education, p. 117) 7/
Kumasi: "CRT scholars recognize that the characteristics ascribed to a particular race.. change to fit a dominant group's interest. In this way, racist behavior is not an aberration in everyday life; it is often normal practice in deeply racialized systems" (Beyond Crit, p210) 8/
Now, it is *possible* that to believe 1) "racism is endemic" and still *not* draw the conclusion that 2) "no white member of society seems quite so innocent"? Yes. But Delgado thinks that claim 1) logically entails claim 2) and so do many other people. 9/
More importantly, Delgado is wrong to imply that "many" CRTs think that racism is systemic. He *knows* that this is a core tenet of CRT. I try to read charitably, but examples like this one make it hard for me to give these scholars the benefit of the doubt. 10/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'd like to ask @brianfraga to reconsider his article criticizing @BishopBarron for saying that #CriticalRaceTheory has "philosophical underpinnings in Nietzsche, Marx, Foucault, and Derrida."
Short, instructive thread. 1/
To determine whether Bishop Barron was correct, @brianfraga turned to @SamRochadotcom, a "Catholic philosopher and academic who has written about critical race theory." Rocha made numerous claims, including the claim that 'critical' in "CRT" simply means the difference 2/
between the biological theory of race and a sociological one" and that "nowhere whatsoever does a critical theory of race or CRT emerge from German or French theoretical foundations" and that "it is fiction to claim that they emerge from the secret roots of Nietzche, Marx, 3/
In the last few months, many prominent evangelical leaders have warned about #CriticalTheory in its various forms. Here's a short thread collecting the statements of Carl Ellis Jr., Tim Keller, Carl Trueman, John Piper, JD Greear, and Anthony Bradley: 1/
Carl Ellis Jr. writes: "my worldview is solely derived from the Scriptures. I therefore reject Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory (CRT), today’s Intersectionality..as well as Marxism and all its applications, as antithetical to..the Gospel of Christ" 2/ drcarlellisjr.blogspot.com/2020/02/seven-…
Tim Keller writes that "postmodern critical theory" is: “deeply incoherent,” “far too simplistic,” “undermining [of] our common humanity,” “[denying] our common sinfulness,” and “mak[ing] forgiveness, peace, and reconciliation between groups impossible” 3/ quarterly.gospelinlife.com/a-biblical-cri…
Christians, "free will" cannot be your only or ultimate response to the problem of evil because of what I call the "informational problem of evil" (short thread):
1/
Many evil events can be averted by simply offering a person more information: that bridge is unsafe, your brakes don't work, your door is unlocked, etc. This information is often utterly banal and is often possessed by other human beings (i.e. it doesn't require omniscience). 2/
Giving a person this information obviously doesn't impinge on their free will: they are free to ignore it. And when a fellow human being tells us this information, we never accuse them of taking away our agency. So the atheist can ask: why doesn't God give us this information? 3/
If anyone is looking for a ton of quotes from primary sources outlining the central tenets of #CriticalRaceTheory, I know a guy who has collected quite a bit of that material... 1/
Sincere question: Is it easier to acquire interdisciplinary knowledge in the sciences or the humanities? (thread)
I'd say it's easier in the sciences, but I'm open to counterargument. The main reason is the universality of math. Math is the language of science and if you 1/
have a good grounding in math, it's amazing how quickly you can pick up other disciplines. For example, problems in engineering or economics or biology look indecipherable at first, but then I'll say "Oh, that's just a Fourier transform" or "I get it: a boundary-value problem" 2/
You can derive a lot from first principles in the sciences, provided you understand the math. The humanities are different because they're so contingent. Knowing 13th-century Spanish history provides me with virtually no knowledge of 2nd-century Chinese history, let alone 3/
I mean this non-pejoratively, but #CriticalTheory is a conspiracy theory without conspirators.
Short thread:
Conspiracy theories argue that the overall trajectory of history and the majority of people's actions are shaped by a powerful, nefarious cabal of conspirators, whose 1/
existence can only be inferred by recognizing subtle, insidious connections between public facts which can be discerned only by people who have gotten "woke".
This is precisely the same argument that critical theorists make, except that the nefarious cabal of conspirators 2/
is replaced by nefarious social forces and hegemonic narratives. No one is intentionally pulling the strings, but we're all nonetheless being controlled. And most people remain in denial and are unable to see the truth until they're enlightened, not by internet forums and 3/