I just discovered perhaps the worst conservative attempt at co-opting MLK ever. So of course, here's a thread on @jasonrileywsj's dumpster fire of a video for @PragerU. 🧵
Galaxy brain take #1: King won the civil rights movement because nobody replaced him after he was murdered.
And note the dubious claim that Black Americans must not face institutional racism because, if they did, someone would've taken King's place.
"Racial gaps in income, education, and home ownership were narrowing in the 1940s, '50s, and '60s," but then widened, Riley says. Really?
Here are some figures on Black-White gaps in income, education, and home ownership. None of them look anything like the animated graph in the video.
Now we get into the classic line rehearsed by Sowell, that current racial equality is caused not by any sort of systemic oppression but "cultural deficiencies" and "anti-social behavior" in Black communities.
Relying on a cherry-picked quote, Riley lumps MLK into this camp.
But what did MLK say in (in my opinion) his greatest written work, the 1967 book "Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?"
That we find the origins of racial inequality in "the white man's problem... white America must assume the guilt for the black man's inferior status."
Rather than even attempt to rebut the arguments of those of us who maintain that systemic anti-Black racism remains one of the most significant forms of injustice in American life, what we get is condescending dismissals of strawmen about white privilege and microaggressions.
Furthermore, the whole idea that MLK had some deep commitment to colorblindness is astoundingly ignorant of what he actually wrote. In these screenshots he expresses support for race consciousness and reparations; see QT for similarities between MLK & CRT
Here MLK anticipates the "danger" of Riley's right-wing response to conceptualizing the plight of the Black American family as socially caused rather than due to race essentialist/biological inferiority: it'll be used to justify neglect & "rationalize continued oppression"
"A half century after King's death, plenty of people are paying him lip service. Far too few are following his example."
I've got no idea where Sully's getting his survey data, since the post is for subscribers only. But USA Today's recent Suffolk poll (n=2010) reports quite differently:
83% of Black parents support CRT in their children's school. Overall, parents are pretty much split.
Other results are telling: more parents support teaching about "ongoing effects of slavery and racism" than "CRT"--likely due to ignorance about what CRT is.
I'd be willing to bet the 30% of parents who oppose "CRT" is nearly coextensive w/ 30% who oppose teaching about racism.
To me the most important finding is this one: a STAGGERING difference between Republicans and Democrats, as well as between Whites and POC (whether Black, "Hispanic," Asian, or other), in support for their children being taught about the ongoing effects of slavery and racism.
I can’t think of a better confirmation of Robin DiAngelo’s thesis than this account. Freaking out about this clip — two White Americans expressing mainstream liberal views — is the most fragile shit I’ve ever seen.
Time for a thread on the Frankfurt School/"Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory, which flared up again with the anti-CRT moral panic we're seeing.
It's hardly changed at all. Let's compare segments from a Free Congress Foundation video (c. '99) & Fox News segment from 2021 🧵 1/
I'll assume some familiarity with the conspiracy theory; if you're completely new to this, I suggest a primer such as that by @DavidNeiwert here dailykos.com/stories/2019/1… 2/
Bill Lind calls it cultural Marxism or "political correctness"; Steve Hilton calls it "wokeism." Both repeat the same talking points: Marxists had to explain why there wasn't a proletarian revolution after WWI. They settled on the idea "Western culture" had to be "destroyed" 3/
It's my honor to announce that, due to my recent article (see QT), I've finally received an overstated, meekly threatening email from @realchrisrufo's "assistant" (bless his heart).
Once unpacked, it perfectly captures the human void of integrity that is Christopher Rufo. 🧵 1/n
Through his reporting on critical race theory over the past year, @realchrisrufo has established himself as one of the most influential GOP activists today. But is there any reason to trust him as a journalist?
Rather than make a thread highlighting all the individual debunkings in this article (there are far too many for that to be practicable), I'm going to post links to further debunkings that it doesn't cover. Starting with Rufo's "briefing book" on CRT: