"[T]his prejudice really has nothing whatever to do with race or color, and that it has its motive and mainspring in some other source with which the mere facts of color and race have nothing to do. … The office of color in the color line is a very plain 1/
2/ "and subordinate one. It simply advertises the objects of oppression, insult, and persecution. It is not the maddening liquor, but the black letters on the sign telling the world where it may be had. It is not the hated Quaker, but the broad brim and the plain coat.
3/ "It is not the hateful Cain, but the mark by which he is known. The color is innocent enough, but things with which it is coupled make it hated. Slavery, ignorance, stupidity, servility, poverty, dependence, are undesirable conditions.
4/4 "When these shall cease to be coupled with color, there will be no color line drawn." ("The Color Line" [1881])
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Requiring one to answer, "Are you for CRT or against CRT?" (or "align with," "accept," etc.) as though it were a tightly defined logical unit with every truth a theorem, is a tactic, a polemic maneuver that makes no sense when discussing social and legal theory. 1/
2/ And this kind of wholesale requirement to accept or reject only applies to cultural bogeyman. You are not, for example, required to "accept or reject" capitalism, but you are required to "accept or reject" Marxism.
Isn't it weird to say, "are you for or against Legal
3/ Realism??" or "are you for or against symbolic interactionism??"
We simply don't think that way about broad theoretical traditions, with various different approaches and continued internal debate, like all social and legal theories.
I wish we could say everything's changed. Hear Dr. King describing 2021 in 1968:
"The persistence of racism in depth and the dawning awareness that Negro demands will necessitate structural changes in society have generated a new phase of white resistance in North and South. 1/
2/ "Based on the cruel judgment that Negroes have come far enough, there is a strong mood to bring the civil rights movement to a halt or reduce it to a crawl. Negro demands that yesterday evoked admiration and support, today—to many—have become tiresome, unwarranted and a
3/ "disturbance to the enjoyment of life. Cries of Black Power and riots are not the causes of white resistance, they are consequences of it."
Just think, our present predicament had already begun in Dr. King's lifetime. Ugh.
"With Selma and the voting rights bill one era of our struggle came to a close and a new era came into being. Now our struggle is for genuine equality, which means economic equality. For we know now that it isn’t enough to integrate lunch counters. 1/
2/ "What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he doesn’t earn enough money to buy a hamburger and a cup of coffee? What does it profit a man to be able to eat at the swankiest integrated restaurant when he doesn’t earn enough money to take
3/ "his wife out to dine? What does it profit one to have access to the hotels of our city and the motels of our highway when we don’t earn enough money to take our family on a vacation? What does it profit one to be able to attend an integrated school when he doesn’t earn
Honestly, is @OStrachan lying or just too ignorant to be writing books on this?
This is his "definition" of "Critical Race Theory." Basically a string of false claims and then what is really MLK's "solution," hahaha. 1/
2/ CRT scholars do not say that ONLY White people can be racist. Here are co-founders of CRT, Charles Lawrence III on the left and Delgado & Stefancic on the right:
3/ And had a mentioned a CRT solution, or an MLK solution? Let's see: