Mormons and Critical Race Theory

[K Graham]

Is it appropriate to talk about "white fragility?" I think not, until college.

Why not? Why is this taboo?

I attended a private school in Phenix City Alabama from 4th-10th grade. That school was considered a "segregation academy" meaning black students were not permitted to enroll. My first interaction with black kids came my junior year when we moved to Atlanta and even then, the school had fewer than 100 black students with more than 3,000 students in High School alone. I wish my parents had taught me SOMETHING about these things, and I've already begun educating my kids. They're 17, 15 and 8.

[Morley]

Is it appropriate to talk about "white fragility?" I think not, until college.

As I understand it, "white fragility" is the concept that talking about race makes white people uncomfortable. You seem to be saying you don't like that concept because it makes you uncomfortable.

That said, I'm fine with waiting until college to explore that in depth.

[drumdude]

I'm most curious about this assertion from drumdude: "critical race theory claims that anyone who criticizes critical race theory must be racist."

Er, what? That exists nowhere in the definition he provided, so what's he talking about?

It seems DD is using a very superficial definition of critical race theory in order to prove its being taught k-12. But this is a common mistake from the Right Wing crowd who typically assumes any kind of historical teaching about racism is pushing critical race theory.

You have engaged very superficially with the information I've posted here. Your no-true-Scotsman fallacy argument isn't very compelling.

[drumdude]

As I understand it, "white fragility" is the concept that talking about race makes white people uncomfortable. You seem to be saying you don't like that concept because it makes you uncomfortable.

This is the genius part about critical race theory, you just pointed out the tautology/self-fulfilling premise built into the theory.

It's kind of like when Dan Peterson says that you rejection religion is actually itself a religion. critical race theory shares much in common with religion because it essentially functions like one.

[K Graham]

I posted a screenshot back on page 4. The specific part I have a problem with is "decenter white tears."

There are websites (I admit right now that they are very likely run by Republicans with a huuuuuuuge agenda) which compile controversial critical race theory teachings like these:

https://whataretheylearning.com/

The justification for this "decenter white tears" line is the critical race theory concept of "white fragility."

What do you think this means?

The phrase has been used to gently tease white people who get upset at things they think threaten their white privilege. It's been used to poke fun at white people who think that talking about race makes you a racist. Or that Barack Obama's presidency marked the end of America. Or that it's a crime against humanity when a formerly white character is portrayed, or rumored to be portrayed, by a person of color. (Think Spider-Man. Annie. James Bond. Hermione. The Human Torch. Dorothy.)

White fragility is best understood as:

White fragility refers to feelings of discomfort a white person experiences when they witness discussions around racial inequality and injustice.

White fragility as described above makes perfect sense and I come across it on a daily basis it seems. Typically on message boards where anything critical of racism triggers a white person to defensively insist it is only racist if you talk about it being racist. White fragility isn't a product of critical race theory, it is likely the other way around.

[K Graham]

I'm most curious about this assertion from drumdude: "critical race theory claims that anyone who criticizes critical race theory must be racist."

Er, what? That exists nowhere in the definition he provided, so what's he talking about?

It seems DD is using a very superficial definition of critical race theory in order to prove its being taught k-12. But this is a common mistake from the Right Wing crowd who typically assumes any kind of historical teaching about racism is pushing critical race theory.

You have engaged very superficially with the information I've posted here. Your no-true-Scotsman fallacy argument isn't very compelling.

Hey, I'm not the one claiming critical race theory is being taught in K-12. You haven't even begun to establish this is the case with the sole example you provided. You haven't explained what you think "decentering white tears" means. I don't exactly know but I suspect it is rather innocuous and not as terrifying as it may sound. You make the illicit leap that this is based on critical race theory's "white fragility," and therefore they're effectively teaching critical race theory to kids. Non sequitur.

And I'd still appreciate a reference to back up this statement: "critical race theory claims that anyone who criticizes critical race theory must be racist." Because this sounds so, so Tucker Carlson.

[drumdude]

I've shared a lot of information, I think it speaks plainly for itself without my commentary. I'll finish by noting that I'm one of the "liberal backsliders" the critical race theory textbook talks about when it says, "former liberals [were] disenchanted with the country’s departure from color-blind neutrality." critical race theory is such an extreme ideology that it frames classical liberals to look like right wing Nazis.

I just think it's important for people to actually read critical race theory. I know Atlantic Mike knows nothing about critical race theory other than what Russia Today and Fox News has told him. And that's just as big a problem as critical race theory itself.

[Res Ipsa]

This is from the "Introduction to Critical Race Theory, 3rd Edition":

Opening remarks from Angela Harris: "None of my professors talked about race or ethnicity; it was apparently irrelevant to the law. None of my professors in the first year talked about feminism or the concerns of women, either. These concerns were also, apparently, irrelevant. Nowhere, in fact, did the cases and materials we read address concerns of group inequality, sexual difference, or cultural identity. There was only one Law, a law that in its universal majesty applied to everyone without regard to race, color, gender, or creed."

The law that applies to everyone without regard to race, color, gender, or creed, is wrong in the Critical Race Theory. Laws need to be changed and applied differently to different races and genders. Can you see the problem yet?

"Critical race theory not only dares to treat race as central to the law and policy of the United States; it dares to look beyond the popular belief that getting rid of racism means simply getting rid of ignorance or encouraging everyone to “get along.” To read this primer is to be sobered by the recognition that racism is part of the structure of legal institutions."

The textbook is self-contradictory even in the first pages. On one hand it bemoans that the legal system does not take into account race, and then on the other bemoans the racism that exists inside the legal system. It's just not the right type of racism. In critical race theory, the solution to one form of racism is the opposite form of racism.

Here's how critical race theory defines itself (page 3):

“The critical race theory (critical race theory) movement is a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up, but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, context, group- and self-interest, and even feelings and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.

If you're anti-Enlightenment rationalism, and anti-neutral principles of constitutional law, then critical race theory is for you.

Here's the book if you're interested in learning more:

414TizogpSL._SX311_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

drumdude.

You're quoting snippets without trying to understand the whole. Crits are not against "neutral princples of constitutional law." They are against theoretical "neutral principles of constitutional law" that, as applied in the real world, are anything but neutral. Structural racism is all about how rules and theories that appear fair and neutral "in the air" result in bias and unfairness "on the ground." If you keep the distinction in mind, you'll better understand what you are reading.

[Res Ipsa]

I've shared a lot of information, I think it speaks plainly for itself without my commentary. I'll finish by noting that I'm one of the "liberal backsliders" the critical race theory textbook talks about when it says, "former liberals [were] disenchanted with the country’s departure from color-blind neutrality." critical race theory is such an extreme ideology that it frames classical liberals to look like right wing Nazis.

I just think it's important for people to actually read critical race theory. I know Atlantic Mike knows nothing about critical race theory other than what Russia Today and Fox News has told him. And that's just as big a problem as critical race theory itself.

Oh, nonsense. It frames classical liberals as deceiving themselves by always talking theory and never looking at the real world application of their ideas. You've extracted and misconstrued excerpts from the book because you haven't taken the time to understand what critical theory does.

[Res Ipsa]

I'm most curious about this assertion from drumdude: "critical race theory claims that anyone who criticizes critical race theory must be racist."

Er, what? That exists nowhere in the definition he provided, so what's he talking about?

It seems DD is using a very superficial definition of critical race theory in order to prove its being taught k-12. But this is a common mistake from the Right Wing crowd who typically assumes any kind of historical teaching about racism is pushing critical race theory.

You have engaged very superficially with the information I've posted here. Your no-true-Scotsman fallacy argument isn't very compelling.

Does the book say that anyone who criticizes critical race theory is racist?