I've always understood it as defined more closely to the first sentence of Wikipedia: Sort of how David Riccardo and Karl Marx are both "socialists," it's possible for one who simply wants laws to...
I've always understood it as defined more closely to the first sentence of Wikipedia:
Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic movement of civil-rights scholars and activists in the United States who seek to critically examine U.S. law as it intersects with issues of race in the U.S. and to challenge mainstream American liberal approaches to racial justice.
Sort of how David Riccardo and Karl Marx are both "socialists," it's possible for one who simply wants laws to account for racism, and somebody who feels black people should have their own schools to avoid the inherent racism of the American education system can be critical race theorists, they're just sitting in different points of the same room. Riccardo would represent what softer lefties would want to represent as CRT, and Marx would be what the die-hard crit would call CRT in this comparison. However, by my understanding, any philosophical area isn't going to exist as a monolith. This isn't to say CRT defies definition, but that it doesn't have to be one or the other. As a relatively new philosophy, it is also in rapid development.
To engage in T1J's discussion of CRT in his terms: I agree with it as not being the best solution for the reasons he describes. This isn't an issue of "perfect getting in the way of good," but in my view more of a very broad philosophical issue in which any single framework is not good enough on its own. Using liberalism as an example, it becomes necessary to determine which liberties can be sacrificed to which degree to preserve the greater, more essential and broadly serving ones. Similarly, while CRT may provide a theoretical basis around which to restructure society, CRT simply exists as another philosophical framework, not "The One True Way."
Also, this is probably the third time in a week I've heard about Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. I was talking to my dad about it, who bought the third edition after listening to some right wing radio wingnut up in Oregon out of pure fascination in much the same way one would listen to Coast to Coast AM.
Tangential to your main point, but I wasn't aware anyone called Ricardo a socialist. Certainly some of his ideas, like labor theory of value, were foundational to later socialist thought, but as...
Tangential to your main point, but I wasn't aware anyone called Ricardo a socialist. Certainly some of his ideas, like labor theory of value, were foundational to later socialist thought, but as far as I know, Ricardo himself was an avowed capitalist.
Posting this in ~news 'cos I figure it classifies as 'political analysis' given CRT has become such a hot issue recently. I am a fan of T1J's channel, I find his content well-balanced and I...
Posting this in ~news 'cos I figure it classifies as 'political analysis' given CRT has become such a hot issue recently. I am a fan of T1J's channel, I find his content well-balanced and I believe they argue in good faith. I am not well read in CRT but I think this gives a good overview of the 'real' idea and addresses the problems with mis-representing CRT from both right and left.
I've always understood it as defined more closely to the first sentence of Wikipedia:
Sort of how David Riccardo and Karl Marx are both "socialists," it's possible for one who simply wants laws to account for racism, and somebody who feels black people should have their own schools to avoid the inherent racism of the American education system can be critical race theorists, they're just sitting in different points of the same room. Riccardo would represent what softer lefties would want to represent as CRT, and Marx would be what the die-hard crit would call CRT in this comparison. However, by my understanding, any philosophical area isn't going to exist as a monolith. This isn't to say CRT defies definition, but that it doesn't have to be one or the other. As a relatively new philosophy, it is also in rapid development.
To engage in T1J's discussion of CRT in his terms: I agree with it as not being the best solution for the reasons he describes. This isn't an issue of "perfect getting in the way of good," but in my view more of a very broad philosophical issue in which any single framework is not good enough on its own. Using liberalism as an example, it becomes necessary to determine which liberties can be sacrificed to which degree to preserve the greater, more essential and broadly serving ones. Similarly, while CRT may provide a theoretical basis around which to restructure society, CRT simply exists as another philosophical framework, not "The One True Way."
Also, this is probably the third time in a week I've heard about Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. I was talking to my dad about it, who bought the third edition after listening to some right wing radio wingnut up in Oregon out of pure fascination in much the same way one would listen to Coast to Coast AM.
Tangential to your main point, but I wasn't aware anyone called Ricardo a socialist. Certainly some of his ideas, like labor theory of value, were foundational to later socialist thought, but as far as I know, Ricardo himself was an avowed capitalist.
Posting this in ~news 'cos I figure it classifies as 'political analysis' given CRT has become such a hot issue recently. I am a fan of T1J's channel, I find his content well-balanced and I believe they argue in good faith. I am not well read in CRT but I think this gives a good overview of the 'real' idea and addresses the problems with mis-representing CRT from both right and left.