@HCblue said:
In short, you seem to be saying I am not racist but am instead too unthinking and unaware to realise that my views align exactly with those of a racist.
Not "exactly" , but this pretty much sums it up for me.
Sometimes it's best to not incessantly reply to subjects that you're not particularly well qualified to comment on, if you were half as intelligent as you obviously think you are then you might have realised that earlier.
@HCblue said:
What I strongly believe will not make things better but, far more likely, make them very much worse, is the application of the principles of critical race theory that operate by highlighting the immutable characteristics of us all and separating us into classes of oppressor and oppressed, removing agency and individual responsibility and creating an environment in which it is more rather than less likely that people will be minded to express hatred or resentment towards people different to them.
It's absolute bollocks of course. Players taking the knee is agency, it is individual responsibility. If you actually believed that it was anything to do with critical race theory then your claim here would mean that they wouldn't be able to take the knee, because they wouldn't have agency, they wouldn't have individual responsibility. Which leaves us with two possibilities - 1. taking the knee has nothing to do with critical race theory, it's just a protest against racism. 2. critical race theory does nothing to remove agency or individual responsibility. Either of these mean that all of your attempts to intellectualise racism like a pound shop Jordan Peterson, are wrong. As are his where you copied them all from.
I don’t understand all the fuss about critical race theory. It’s just academic analysis of the idea that racism exists in ways beyond face value.
An example might be a study showing that an organisation with an equal opportunities approach to recruitment remains more likely to invite otherwise identical candidates with a traditionally white, British name to interview than one with a traditionally Asian name.
That kind of thing informs future recruitment best practice of not revealing candidates names until after the interview sift has taken place.
The big bugbear is that protectionist white people are very afraid of non-white people ending up with the actual same rights and opportunities as them.
@HCblue said:
What I strongly believe will not make things better but, far more likely, make them very much worse, is the application of the principles of critical race theory that operate by highlighting the immutable characteristics of us all and separating us into classes of oppressor and oppressed, removing agency and individual responsibility and creating an environment in which it is more rather than less likely that people will be minded to express hatred or resentment towards people different to them.
It's absolute bollocks of course. Players taking the knee is agency, it is individual responsibility. If you actually believed that it was anything to do with critical race theory then your claim here would mean that they wouldn't be able to take the knee, because they wouldn't have agency, they wouldn't have individual responsibility. Which leaves us with two possibilities - 1. taking the knee has nothing to do with critical race theory, it's just a protest against racism. 2. critical race theory does nothing to remove agency or individual responsibility. Either of these mean that all of your attempts to intellectualise racism like a pound shop Jordan Peterson, are wrong. As are his where you copied them all from.
CRT underpins one potential system or ideology for implementing change, not necessarily the protest itself, as most of those making the protest in the UK have more or less said now but which was not so much the case last summer in the US. The Critical Theory emphasis on group rather than individual identity and the presentation of those groups as de facto implementers or sufferers or prejudice is the thing that threatens to remove agency from all parties. The idea that all white people are, wittingly or not, supporters and beneficiaries of an inherently oppressive system tends to make them irredeemably guilty. The idea that all black people are, wittingly or not, inevitably to be the victims of a fundamentally biased system tends to encourage them to think themselves helpless.
Seeking to identify me with someone you don't like may make you feel validated but adds nothing to your argument.
@Chris said:
I don’t understand all the fuss about critical race theory. It’s just academic analysis of the idea that racism exists in ways beyond face value.
An example might be a study showing that an organisation with an equal opportunities approach to recruitment remains more likely to invite otherwise identical candidates with a traditionally white, British name to interview than one with a traditionally Asian name.
That kind of thing informs future recruitment best practice of not revealing candidates names until after the interview sift has taken place.
What’s the big bugbear?
The bugbear, such as it might be, is that CRT, and critical theory generally, tends to strip away everything we think we understand and remove all possibility of identifying what might be called objective truth, instead emphasising the value of historically marginalised perspectives and seeking to elevate those as a way to counteract the pre-existing prejudices held by society without necessarily making a careful assessment of the value or accuracy of those other perspectives.
If I understand your tone correctly, we share an openness to a consideration of radically different perspectives on the world. The question is the degree to which it is right to ignore or contradict what we think is already understood and the standards of evidence we should apply to testing where the truth lies. Is it right that the way we should look at situations is to consider not whether racism has taken place but rather to ask in what way racism has manifested itself at any given moment? I can understand why such a position may have gained considerable currency in the US given its more recent history of overt and systemic racism and the fact that slave labour played a significant part in the early years of its establishment. But I do not think it a valuable universal approach and do think that in encouraging the idea that racism is present everywhere at all times, it risks having a divisive rather than unifying effect.
This is entirely separate from the question of whether there is such a thing as unwitting or unconscious bias, such as in the example you cite. I am pretty sure there is.
I don’t think you’d find many people involved in studying critical theory who would agree with that interpretation. Plenty of people who write for the Telegraph and the Spectator though.
@HCblue said:
In short, you seem to be saying I am not racist but am instead too unthinking and unaware to realise that my views align exactly with those of a racist.
Not "exactly" , but this pretty much sums it up for me.
Sometimes it's best to not incessantly reply to subjects that you're not particularly well qualified to comment on, if you were half as intelligent as you obviously think you are then you might have realised that earlier.
@HCblue said:
What I strongly believe will not make things better but, far more likely, make them very much worse, is the application of the principles of critical race theory that operate by highlighting the immutable characteristics of us all and separating us into classes of oppressor and oppressed, removing agency and individual responsibility and creating an environment in which it is more rather than less likely that people will be minded to express hatred or resentment towards people different to them.
It's absolute bollocks of course. Players taking the knee is agency, it is individual responsibility. If you actually believed that it was anything to do with critical race theory then your claim here would mean that they wouldn't be able to take the knee, because they wouldn't have agency, they wouldn't have individual responsibility. Which leaves us with two possibilities - 1. taking the knee has nothing to do with critical race theory, it's just a protest against racism. 2. critical race theory does nothing to remove agency or individual responsibility. Either of these mean that all of your attempts to intellectualise racism like a pound shop Jordan Peterson, are wrong. As are his where you copied them all from.
CRT underpins one potential system or ideology for implementing change, not necessarily the protest itself, as most of those making the protest in the UK have more or less said now but which was not so much the case last summer in the US. The Critical Theory emphasis on group rather than individual identity and the presentation of those groups as de facto implementers or sufferers or prejudice is the thing that threatens to remove agency from all parties. The idea that all white people are, wittingly or not, supporters and beneficiaries of an inherently oppressive system tends to make them irredeemably guilty. The idea that all black people are, wittingly or not, inevitably to be the victims of a fundamentally biased system tends to encourage them to think themselves helpless.
Seeking to identify me with someone you don't like may make you happy but adds nothing to your argument.
So if I’m reading you right, you are saying that CRT states that change is impossible. You use the words irredeemably and helpless. I had understood CRT to be an explanatory model for why racism exists despite, on the surface, the removal of overt racist laws and practices and their replacement with seemingly non discriminatory laws and legal protections.
As for your sentence that includes the words supporters and beneficiaries I argue that CRT does make the claim that we (white people) are beneficiaries of a biased system and it is a claim I agree with. It is through the writings and conversations I have had with colleagues and friends who identify as non-white and my own reading and critical examination of my life that I have come to understand how the system currently works to my advantage. Now better informed, I am able to begin to work to change that system and no longer support it through ignorance and inaction. My friends and colleagues take issue with your statement that they are helpless. They currently have less power within the system but are actively working for equality in power to sit alongside equality in law as the latter is not the same as the former.
@Chris said:
I don’t think you’d find many people involved in studying critical theory who would agree with that interpretation. Plenty of people who write for the Telegraph and the Spectator though.
"To not act against racism is to support racism."
"The question is not 'Did racism take place?" but rather 'How did racism manifest in that situation?'."
I believe it was Herodotus who once said: 'The destiny of man is in his own soul and Millwall Football Club is historically racist which is why they boo the taking of the knee...' and I think therein lies a lesson for us all.
The idea that all white people are, wittingly or not, supporters and beneficiaries of an inherently oppressive system tends to make them irredeemably guilty.
No it doesn't. We white brits are all beneficiaries of an inherently oppressive system are we not? The UK was built on colonising brown people, exploiting their labour, robbing their riches and destroying their heritage. It's the only reason we are anywhere near being one of the biggest economies in the world. Some of us though, believe it or not, do actually feel bad about that fact. I suspect those who boo the taking of the knee, or defend the booers, do not. It does not make us irredeemably guilty, it makes us aware that we have historical actions to not be proud of, and makes us aware that we need to do more, even now. Considering you wrote this...
It's easy to characterise people with a different perspective in the worst possible way, as has generally been done so far on this thread. This is very unappealing to me and makes me want to push back.
It's weird that you then decide that everyone who acknowledges benefiting from historical atrocities against other races must be irredeemably guilty. It's a complete non-sequitur, one does not automatically mean the other, and it is the specific logical fallacy that I was referring to when I said you're parroting the views of the extreme right. This exact phrase turns up in nazi telegram groups all the time.
The idea that all black people are, wittingly or not, inevitably to be the victims of a fundamentally biased system tends to encourage them to think themselves helpless.
More from the far right playbook. "We're not racists, we're encouraging black people to not think of themselves as victims". The word "inevitably" is doing an awful lot of work here. If you do actually have any black friends, ask them if some footballers taking the knee makes them feel like a helpless victim. Or if, as is far more likely, it makes them feel proud that people of all races are publicly taking a stance against something that regularly makes their lives less pleasant than yours or mine.
All of this is quite the diversion, given that you have elsewhere admitted that taking the knee has absolutely nothing to do with critical race theory, so why you needed to bring it into the discussion is anyone's guess. And I think we might all have fairly good guesses.
@HCblue said:
What I strongly believe will not make things better but, far more likely, make them very much worse, is the application of the principles of critical race theory that operate by highlighting the immutable characteristics of us all and separating us into classes of oppressor and oppressed, removing agency and individual responsibility and creating an environment in which it is more rather than less likely that people will be minded to express hatred or resentment towards people different to them.
It's absolute bollocks of course. Players taking the knee is agency, it is individual responsibility. If you actually believed that it was anything to do with critical race theory then your claim here would mean that they wouldn't be able to take the knee, because they wouldn't have agency, they wouldn't have individual responsibility. Which leaves us with two possibilities - 1. taking the knee has nothing to do with critical race theory, it's just a protest against racism. 2. critical race theory does nothing to remove agency or individual responsibility. Either of these mean that all of your attempts to intellectualise racism like a pound shop Jordan Peterson, are wrong. As are his where you copied them all from.
CRT underpins one potential system or ideology for implementing change, not necessarily the protest itself, as most of those making the protest in the UK have more or less said now but which was not so much the case last summer in the US. The Critical Theory emphasis on group rather than individual identity and the presentation of those groups as de facto implementers or sufferers or prejudice is the thing that threatens to remove agency from all parties. The idea that all white people are, wittingly or not, supporters and beneficiaries of an inherently oppressive system tends to make them irredeemably guilty. The idea that all black people are, wittingly or not, inevitably to be the victims of a fundamentally biased system tends to encourage them to think themselves helpless.
Seeking to identify me with someone you don't like may make you happy but adds nothing to your argument.
So if I’m reading you right, you are saying that CRT states that change is impossible. You use the words irredeemably and helpless. I had understood CRT to be an explanatory model for why racism exists despite, on the surface, the removal of overt racist laws and practices and their replacement with seemingly non discriminatory laws and legal protections.
As for your sentence that includes the words supporters and beneficiaries I argue that CRT does make the claim that we (white people) are beneficiaries of a biased system and it is a claim I agree with. It is through the writings and conversations I have had with colleagues and friends who identify as non-white and my own reading and critical examination of my life that I have come to understand how the system currently works to my advantage. Now better informed, I am able to begin to work to change that system and no longer support it through ignorance and inaction. My friends and colleagues take issue with your statement that they are helpless. They currently have less power within the system but are actively working for equality in power to sit alongside equality in law as the latter is not the same as the former.
Thanks for this.
I don't say that CRT suggests change is impossible but that the practical effect of its collective-centred approach makes positive change less rather than more likely.
I also agree with the proposition of the first sentence of paragraph two. Similarly, I would agree with the proposition that I have enjoyed varying measures of advantage from being male, middle class and of a two-parent family - we all enjoy various benefits and disadvantages and we all deal with them differently. The question is how we identify these, how we rank them and how we address them and it is this framing that is currently up for grabs, as it were.
Taking your phrase "equality of power" to mean equality of treatment and opportunity in society, I agree with you. (By all means correct me if you meant something different.) There has to be a discussion about how that is measured.
The idea that all white people are, wittingly or not, supporters and beneficiaries of an inherently oppressive system tends to make them irredeemably guilty.
No it doesn't. We white brits are all beneficiaries of an inherently oppressive system are we not? The UK was built on colonising brown people, exploiting their labour, robbing their riches and destroying their heritage. It's the only reason we are anywhere near being one of the biggest economies in the world. Some of us though, believe it or not, do actually feel bad about that fact. I suspect those who boo the taking of the knee, or defend the booers, do not. It does not make us irredeemably guilty, it makes us aware that we have historical actions to not be proud of, and makes us aware that we need to do more, even now. Considering you wrote this...
It's easy to characterise people with a different perspective in the worst possible way, as has generally been done so far on this thread. This is very unappealing to me and makes me want to push back.
It's weird that you then decide that everyone who acknowledges benefiting from historical atrocities against other races must be irredeemably guilty. It's a complete non-sequitur, one does not automatically mean the other, and it is the specific logical fallacy that I was referring to when I said you're parroting the views of the extreme right. This exact phrase turns up in nazi telegram groups all the time.
The idea that all black people are, wittingly or not, inevitably to be the victims of a fundamentally biased system tends to encourage them to think themselves helpless.
More from the far right playbook. "We're not racists, we're encouraging black people to not think of themselves as victims". The word "inevitably" is doing an awful lot of work here. If you do actually have any black friends, ask them if some footballers taking the knee makes them feel like a helpless victim. Or if, as is far more likely, it makes them feel proud that people of all races are publicly taking a stance against something that regularly makes their lives less pleasant than yours or mine.
All of this is quite the diversion, given that you have elsewhere admitted that taking the knee has absolutely nothing to do with critical race theory, so why you needed to bring it into the discussion is anyone's guess. And I think we might all have fairly good guesses.
Once again with the ad hominem at the end of a post I was otherwise ready to reply to.
@Wendoverman said:
I believe it was Herodotus who once said: 'The destiny of man is in his own soul and Millwall Football Club is historically racist which is why they boo the taking of the knee...' and I think therein lies a lesson for us all.
I wouldn't go so far as to say I'd take my kids out of your school but if your lessons are anything like your posts on here they must be fucking boring
@eric_plant said:
I wouldn't go so far as to say I'd take my kids out of your school but if your lessons are anything like your posts on here they must be fucking boring
@Malone said:
This is probably one of those conversations that would come across a lot better in the flesh than on an internet forum.
Nowadays I walk away from conversations like this...especially ones that include some sort of sneery 'do your research' . Life is too short. As I blocked one of the posters last time out, visually for me a lot of this thread looks like he/she is largely arguing with him/herself.
@HCblue said:
What I strongly believe will not make things better but, far more likely, make them very much worse, is the application of the principles of critical race theory that operate by highlighting the immutable characteristics of us all and separating us into classes of oppressor and oppressed, removing agency and individual responsibility and creating an environment in which it is more rather than less likely that people will be minded to express hatred or resentment towards people different to them.
It's absolute bollocks of course. Players taking the knee is agency, it is individual responsibility. If you actually believed that it was anything to do with critical race theory then your claim here would mean that they wouldn't be able to take the knee, because they wouldn't have agency, they wouldn't have individual responsibility. Which leaves us with two possibilities - 1. taking the knee has nothing to do with critical race theory, it's just a protest against racism. 2. critical race theory does nothing to remove agency or individual responsibility. Either of these mean that all of your attempts to intellectualise racism like a pound shop Jordan Peterson, are wrong. As are his where you copied them all from.
CRT underpins one potential system or ideology for implementing change, not necessarily the protest itself, as most of those making the protest in the UK have more or less said now but which was not so much the case last summer in the US. The Critical Theory emphasis on group rather than individual identity and the presentation of those groups as de facto implementers or sufferers or prejudice is the thing that threatens to remove agency from all parties. The idea that all white people are, wittingly or not, supporters and beneficiaries of an inherently oppressive system tends to make them irredeemably guilty. The idea that all black people are, wittingly or not, inevitably to be the victims of a fundamentally biased system tends to encourage them to think themselves helpless.
Seeking to identify me with someone you don't like may make you happy but adds nothing to your argument.
So if I’m reading you right, you are saying that CRT states that change is impossible. You use the words irredeemably and helpless. I had understood CRT to be an explanatory model for why racism exists despite, on the surface, the removal of overt racist laws and practices and their replacement with seemingly non discriminatory laws and legal protections.
As for your sentence that includes the words supporters and beneficiaries I argue that CRT does make the claim that we (white people) are beneficiaries of a biased system and it is a claim I agree with. It is through the writings and conversations I have had with colleagues and friends who identify as non-white and my own reading and critical examination of my life that I have come to understand how the system currently works to my advantage. Now better informed, I am able to begin to work to change that system and no longer support it through ignorance and inaction. My friends and colleagues take issue with your statement that they are helpless. They currently have less power within the system but are actively working for equality in power to sit alongside equality in law as the latter is not the same as the former.
Thanks for this.
I don't say that CRT suggests change is impossible but that the practical effect of its collective-centred approach makes positive change less rather than more likely.
I also agree with the proposition of the first sentence of paragraph two. Similarly, I would agree with the proposition that I have enjoyed varying measures of advantage from being male, middle class and of a two-parent family - we all enjoy various benefits and disadvantages and we all deal with them differently. The question is how we identify these, how we rank them and how we address them and it is this framing that is currently up for grabs, as it were.
Taking your phrase "equality of power" to mean equality of treatment and opportunity in society, I agree with you. (By all means correct me if you meant something different.) There has to be a discussion about how that is measured.
Whilst I grant you that individuals can bring about great change l’d argue that a collective will for change is also necessary.
Secondly, do you think that people who are non-white are treated equally and have equal opportunities in current English society? I do not, even though they may have, as you have said I think, equal rights in law.
@HCblue said:
What I strongly believe will not make things better but, far more likely, make them very much worse, is the application of the principles of critical race theory that operate by highlighting the immutable characteristics of us all and separating us into classes of oppressor and oppressed, removing agency and individual responsibility and creating an environment in which it is more rather than less likely that people will be minded to express hatred or resentment towards people different to them.
It's absolute bollocks of course. Players taking the knee is agency, it is individual responsibility. If you actually believed that it was anything to do with critical race theory then your claim here would mean that they wouldn't be able to take the knee, because they wouldn't have agency, they wouldn't have individual responsibility. Which leaves us with two possibilities - 1. taking the knee has nothing to do with critical race theory, it's just a protest against racism. 2. critical race theory does nothing to remove agency or individual responsibility. Either of these mean that all of your attempts to intellectualise racism like a pound shop Jordan Peterson, are wrong. As are his where you copied them all from.
CRT underpins one potential system or ideology for implementing change, not necessarily the protest itself, as most of those making the protest in the UK have more or less said now but which was not so much the case last summer in the US. The Critical Theory emphasis on group rather than individual identity and the presentation of those groups as de facto implementers or sufferers or prejudice is the thing that threatens to remove agency from all parties. The idea that all white people are, wittingly or not, supporters and beneficiaries of an inherently oppressive system tends to make them irredeemably guilty. The idea that all black people are, wittingly or not, inevitably to be the victims of a fundamentally biased system tends to encourage them to think themselves helpless.
Seeking to identify me with someone you don't like may make you happy but adds nothing to your argument.
So if I’m reading you right, you are saying that CRT states that change is impossible. You use the words irredeemably and helpless. I had understood CRT to be an explanatory model for why racism exists despite, on the surface, the removal of overt racist laws and practices and their replacement with seemingly non discriminatory laws and legal protections.
As for your sentence that includes the words supporters and beneficiaries I argue that CRT does make the claim that we (white people) are beneficiaries of a biased system and it is a claim I agree with. It is through the writings and conversations I have had with colleagues and friends who identify as non-white and my own reading and critical examination of my life that I have come to understand how the system currently works to my advantage. Now better informed, I am able to begin to work to change that system and no longer support it through ignorance and inaction. My friends and colleagues take issue with your statement that they are helpless. They currently have less power within the system but are actively working for equality in power to sit alongside equality in law as the latter is not the same as the former.
Thanks for this.
I don't say that CRT suggests change is impossible but that the practical effect of its collective-centred approach makes positive change less rather than more likely.
I also agree with the proposition of the first sentence of paragraph two. Similarly, I would agree with the proposition that I have enjoyed varying measures of advantage from being male, middle class and of a two-parent family - we all enjoy various benefits and disadvantages and we all deal with them differently. The question is how we identify these, how we rank them and how we address them and it is this framing that is currently up for grabs, as it were.
Taking your phrase "equality of power" to mean equality of treatment and opportunity in society, I agree with you. (By all means correct me if you meant something different.) There has to be a discussion about how that is measured.
Whilst I grant you that individuals can bring about great change l’d argue that a collective will for change is also necessary.
Naturally, hence consciousness raising actions such as this in order to garner such support. Some measure of collective will, or support, is essential to change in a functioning democracy, right?
Secondly, do you think that people who are non-white are treated equally and have equal opportunities in current English society? I do not, even though they may have, as you have said I think, equal rights in law.
Honestly, I don't know. It would be easy to say a quick "no, because racism". But, if we support the idea that most discrimination that takes place these days is unconscious, it would be harder to assess the reasons why you or I or X did not secure a job or other opportunity.
It's possible, I expect, to make some kind of appraisal of the averages for different social groups but not necessarily to attribute the reasons for differences between them accurately. (Not saying it's not worth collecting the data. Just that interpretation of it might not be straightforward.) I did say, you are right, that we are theoretically equal under the law but I accept that that does not necessarily mean we all treat each other the same.
I did say, you are right, that we are theoretically equal under the law but I accept that that does not necessarily mean we all treat each other the same.
Given this new found awareness that didn't exist a couple of pages ago, do you still think it's fine to boo players for taking a stand against racism?
And given that you have (seemingly over the course of this thread) come to accept the word of the players about why they're doing it, and that it has nothing to do with critical race theory in another country, any answer to why you ever thought that was a valid reason to stand up for the rights of racists?
Bloody foreigners coming over here criticising division and hate and demanding inclusion! We need a good English manager who wants someone to work out how better to combat racism without upsetting racist fans.
Comments
I think we have reached the conclusion of this thread
Not "exactly" , but this pretty much sums it up for me.
Sometimes it's best to not incessantly reply to subjects that you're not particularly well qualified to comment on, if you were half as intelligent as you obviously think you are then you might have realised that earlier.
It's absolute bollocks of course. Players taking the knee is agency, it is individual responsibility. If you actually believed that it was anything to do with critical race theory then your claim here would mean that they wouldn't be able to take the knee, because they wouldn't have agency, they wouldn't have individual responsibility. Which leaves us with two possibilities - 1. taking the knee has nothing to do with critical race theory, it's just a protest against racism. 2. critical race theory does nothing to remove agency or individual responsibility. Either of these mean that all of your attempts to intellectualise racism like a pound shop Jordan Peterson, are wrong. As are his where you copied them all from.
I don’t understand all the fuss about critical race theory. It’s just academic analysis of the idea that racism exists in ways beyond face value.
An example might be a study showing that an organisation with an equal opportunities approach to recruitment remains more likely to invite otherwise identical candidates with a traditionally white, British name to interview than one with a traditionally Asian name.
That kind of thing informs future recruitment best practice of not revealing candidates names until after the interview sift has taken place.
What’s the big bugbear?
The big bugbear is that protectionist white people are very afraid of non-white people ending up with the actual same rights and opportunities as them.
CRT underpins one potential system or ideology for implementing change, not necessarily the protest itself, as most of those making the protest in the UK have more or less said now but which was not so much the case last summer in the US. The Critical Theory emphasis on group rather than individual identity and the presentation of those groups as de facto implementers or sufferers or prejudice is the thing that threatens to remove agency from all parties. The idea that all white people are, wittingly or not, supporters and beneficiaries of an inherently oppressive system tends to make them irredeemably guilty. The idea that all black people are, wittingly or not, inevitably to be the victims of a fundamentally biased system tends to encourage them to think themselves helpless.
Seeking to identify me with someone you don't like may make you feel validated but adds nothing to your argument.
The bugbear, such as it might be, is that CRT, and critical theory generally, tends to strip away everything we think we understand and remove all possibility of identifying what might be called objective truth, instead emphasising the value of historically marginalised perspectives and seeking to elevate those as a way to counteract the pre-existing prejudices held by society without necessarily making a careful assessment of the value or accuracy of those other perspectives.
If I understand your tone correctly, we share an openness to a consideration of radically different perspectives on the world. The question is the degree to which it is right to ignore or contradict what we think is already understood and the standards of evidence we should apply to testing where the truth lies. Is it right that the way we should look at situations is to consider not whether racism has taken place but rather to ask in what way racism has manifested itself at any given moment? I can understand why such a position may have gained considerable currency in the US given its more recent history of overt and systemic racism and the fact that slave labour played a significant part in the early years of its establishment. But I do not think it a valuable universal approach and do think that in encouraging the idea that racism is present everywhere at all times, it risks having a divisive rather than unifying effect.
This is entirely separate from the question of whether there is such a thing as unwitting or unconscious bias, such as in the example you cite. I am pretty sure there is.
I don’t think you’d find many people involved in studying critical theory who would agree with that interpretation. Plenty of people who write for the Telegraph and the Spectator though.
I'm sure I am grateful for your forbearance.
So if I’m reading you right, you are saying that CRT states that change is impossible. You use the words irredeemably and helpless. I had understood CRT to be an explanatory model for why racism exists despite, on the surface, the removal of overt racist laws and practices and their replacement with seemingly non discriminatory laws and legal protections.
As for your sentence that includes the words supporters and beneficiaries I argue that CRT does make the claim that we (white people) are beneficiaries of a biased system and it is a claim I agree with. It is through the writings and conversations I have had with colleagues and friends who identify as non-white and my own reading and critical examination of my life that I have come to understand how the system currently works to my advantage. Now better informed, I am able to begin to work to change that system and no longer support it through ignorance and inaction. My friends and colleagues take issue with your statement that they are helpless. They currently have less power within the system but are actively working for equality in power to sit alongside equality in law as the latter is not the same as the former.
"To not act against racism is to support racism."
"The question is not 'Did racism take place?" but rather 'How did racism manifest in that situation?'."
Among the principles set out at the beginning of this discussion: https://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/race_pedagogy/23/
I believe it was Herodotus who once said: 'The destiny of man is in his own soul and Millwall Football Club is historically racist which is why they boo the taking of the knee...' and I think therein lies a lesson for us all.
No it doesn't. We white brits are all beneficiaries of an inherently oppressive system are we not? The UK was built on colonising brown people, exploiting their labour, robbing their riches and destroying their heritage. It's the only reason we are anywhere near being one of the biggest economies in the world. Some of us though, believe it or not, do actually feel bad about that fact. I suspect those who boo the taking of the knee, or defend the booers, do not. It does not make us irredeemably guilty, it makes us aware that we have historical actions to not be proud of, and makes us aware that we need to do more, even now. Considering you wrote this...
It's weird that you then decide that everyone who acknowledges benefiting from historical atrocities against other races must be irredeemably guilty. It's a complete non-sequitur, one does not automatically mean the other, and it is the specific logical fallacy that I was referring to when I said you're parroting the views of the extreme right. This exact phrase turns up in nazi telegram groups all the time.
More from the far right playbook. "We're not racists, we're encouraging black people to not think of themselves as victims". The word "inevitably" is doing an awful lot of work here. If you do actually have any black friends, ask them if some footballers taking the knee makes them feel like a helpless victim. Or if, as is far more likely, it makes them feel proud that people of all races are publicly taking a stance against something that regularly makes their lives less pleasant than yours or mine.
All of this is quite the diversion, given that you have elsewhere admitted that taking the knee has absolutely nothing to do with critical race theory, so why you needed to bring it into the discussion is anyone's guess. And I think we might all have fairly good guesses.
Thanks for this.
I don't say that CRT suggests change is impossible but that the practical effect of its collective-centred approach makes positive change less rather than more likely.
I also agree with the proposition of the first sentence of paragraph two. Similarly, I would agree with the proposition that I have enjoyed varying measures of advantage from being male, middle class and of a two-parent family - we all enjoy various benefits and disadvantages and we all deal with them differently. The question is how we identify these, how we rank them and how we address them and it is this framing that is currently up for grabs, as it were.
Taking your phrase "equality of power" to mean equality of treatment and opportunity in society, I agree with you. (By all means correct me if you meant something different.) There has to be a discussion about how that is measured.
Once again with the ad hominem at the end of a post I was otherwise ready to reply to.
Made me laugh. Thank you.
That's not ad-hominem. Try again.
I wouldn't go so far as to say I'd take my kids out of your school but if your lessons are anything like your posts on here they must be fucking boring
I have a cattle prod.
This is probably one of those conversations that would come across a lot better in the flesh than on an internet forum.
Nowadays I walk away from conversations like this...especially ones that include some sort of sneery 'do your research' . Life is too short. As I blocked one of the posters last time out, visually for me a lot of this thread looks like he/she is largely arguing with him/herself.
Whilst I grant you that individuals can bring about great change l’d argue that a collective will for change is also necessary.
Secondly, do you think that people who are non-white are treated equally and have equal opportunities in current English society? I do not, even though they may have, as you have said I think, equal rights in law.
Absolutely.
Naturally, hence consciousness raising actions such as this in order to garner such support. Some measure of collective will, or support, is essential to change in a functioning democracy, right?
Honestly, I don't know. It would be easy to say a quick "no, because racism". But, if we support the idea that most discrimination that takes place these days is unconscious, it would be harder to assess the reasons why you or I or X did not secure a job or other opportunity.
It's possible, I expect, to make some kind of appraisal of the averages for different social groups but not necessarily to attribute the reasons for differences between them accurately. (Not saying it's not worth collecting the data. Just that interpretation of it might not be straightforward.) I did say, you are right, that we are theoretically equal under the law but I accept that that does not necessarily mean we all treat each other the same.
Given this new found awareness that didn't exist a couple of pages ago, do you still think it's fine to boo players for taking a stand against racism?
And given that you have (seemingly over the course of this thread) come to accept the word of the players about why they're doing it, and that it has nothing to do with critical race theory in another country, any answer to why you ever thought that was a valid reason to stand up for the rights of racists?
Thanks @drcongo. Saved me a post.
Contrast Rowett's approach to discrimination with this from Klopp on the homophobic chanting at the Liverpool game:
Not sure that the Chelsea Rent boys chant is homophobic mind you so I wouldn't necessarily want to group it all together.
When I saw the story on Twitter I assumed they were singing something else entirely (that definitely would be homophobic).
Bloody foreigners coming over here criticising division and hate and demanding inclusion! We need a good English manager who wants someone to work out how better to combat racism without upsetting racist fans.
How else could it be interpreted? Genuine question, as I've read up on the connotations and all that.