A few days ago, @DennyBurk posted this picture of an @MSNBC legal analyst with the book #CriticalRaceTheory: The Key Writings in the background.
Given the pushback, I thought I'd show how CRT can help us understand progressive commentary on the #Rittenhouse verdict. A thread: 1/
CRT asserts that racism is "ordinary, not aberrational." It is the "usual way society does business" (Delgado and Stefancic, CRT: An Introduction, p. 8).
This is especially true in our legal system, where ideas like "liberalism, neutrality, objectivity, colorblindness, and meritocracy… camouflage [how] racial advantage propels the self-interests, power, and privileges of the dominant group" (Harper et al., JHE, 2009)
Even instances of racial progress/justice can be explained away as "interest convergence," the notion that "whites will allow and support racial justice/progress to the extent that there is something positive in it for them" (Hartlep, Going Public, p. 157) 4/
Finally, while traditional legal scholars might ground law in some "universal system of right and wrong", CRTs insist that "political and moral analysis is situational—‘truths only exist for this person in this predicament at this time in history’” (Matsuda et al., p. 20-21) 5/
On this view, Rittenhouse's exoneration was further evidence of a racist legal system constructed for the benefit of whites. Appeals to "due process" and "the right to self-defense" are mere excuses to preserve a systemically racist legal system. 6/
Appeals to recent cases where black defendants were exonerated under the same legal principles as Rittenhouse can be seen as mere instances of "interest convergence," where Blacks happen to benefit from laws that still serve White interests. 7/ sports.yahoo.com/jury-acquits-g…
In conclusion, if we want to understand our current cultural moment and progressive reactions to the #Rittenhouse verdict, it helps to understand #CriticalRaceTheory. You can read more here from CRTs in their own words with no commentary. 8/8 shenviapologetics.com/what-is-critic…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've seen people scoff at the idea that kids might be hearing that it's bad to be white, so here's a short thread.
First, here's Robin DiAngelo in White Fragility saying “a positive white identity is an impossible goal” and “to be less white is to be less racially oppressive” 1/
Next, here are Delgado and Stefancic in #CriticalRaceTheory: An Introduction: "many critical race theorists... hold that racism is pervasive, systemic, and deeply ingrained. If we take this perspective, then no white member of society seems quite so innocent.” 2/
Here's Sandra Bartky, quoted in Applebaum's Being White, Being Good: "On my view, I am guilty by virtue of simply being who I am: a white woman, born into an aspiring middle-class family in a racist and class-ridden society." 3/
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/
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/