Slavery in America

[jamil]

The idea that the original sin of the United States had long-lasting repercussions that endure to this day, and which can explain a number social, political, economic, and legal issues.

That is a favorably reductive description of CRT. First, I reject the idea that slavery can be described as "the original sin". It is *A* sin that the US participated in, along with the rest of the world. Of course we need to acknowledge the reluctance of the US to end it. It took a war to do it, notwithstanding BigRed's fantasy of the South being innocent victims of Lincoln. But for you and others to couch it in that religious wording isn't descriptive. The doctrine of original sin doesn't describe the dynamics of slavery in early US history.

But, CRT gets some things right. The historical injustices committed against Black people in the US of course has affected Black people generationally in culture and status. But that's about all that CRT gets right. And that part that they get right could be taught without the identitarian ********. CRT makes some specific claims about the nature of White people and the nature of Black people, particularly that White people manifest racism always.

So my objection to CRT is not that they're teaching that the generational injustices committed against Black people have disadvantaged Black people living today. The thing they also teach is that all the social institutions today were created by white people to maintain their power to oppress Black people and that is simply nonsense.

The goal of CRT is to tear down all those institutions and create new ones which flip the hierarchy. The goal isn't just to end racism--they don't believe that racism can be ended, because they believe White people are inherently racist--the goal is to change the power structure, create new institutions, where they get to use institutional power against their oppressors.

A sane and functional society would mock that idea and drive the ideologues who promulgate it to just stop.

The problem that I see with most people, is that they time that they think what's being said is that it's as bad "now," as it was "then," that plainly false. We're nowhere close. Another problem is that some people think they're being called racists simply because of the CRT notion. That's not true either.

I agree that we're no where close, and that race relations have made great strides in the past 100 years. But I completely disagree that the CRT academia aren't saying it's still bad. Because they are. Micro-aggressions and cultural appropriation, and all that lingo they've developed, to me sound like excuses to claim racism is still as bad. And if we're talking within the thinking of CRT, yes, people ARE being told they're racist. We're told that if we want to live in a society that no longer cares about immutable characteristics, like skin color, that that's actually racist. So yes. People are being called racists for saying or doing things that aren't actually racist.

ETA: A question for you. Is silence really violence? Must a White person be an anti-racist ally to forgive their original sin of racism? Now see, that's an appropriate usage of original sin to describe the way CRT academia thinks about it. They think White people are inherently racist and just can't help it--they keep saying it--as if they're incapable of racism themselves. That whole dogma is racist to the core. Hell no that ideological ******** should not be taught in school.

 

[jamil]

You're calling it racist indoctrination; can you please tell me exactly how CRT is that? In what way does the concept cultivate racism against, assumedly, White people living today.

Is this question even sincere? Have you read their books? I have to ask how detailed is your understanding of CRT?

 

[jamil]

I think that the people arguing for/against CRT should have a common definition of racism. But I don't think that's possible because CRT has redefined it in a way that is unacceptable to those arguing against CRT.

 

[KG1]

I think one of the problem's I have with CRT curriculum being taught to school children is the notion that there is inherent racism just because of the color of your skin. Meaning that all white people are inherently racists and must be viewed as such due to the historic issue of slavery.

 

[BugI02]

We were one of the first, if not the first, Western country to completely do away with slavery

The French abolished slavery in 1794, after the (ultimately successful) slave revolt in what is now Haiti/Dominican Rep. Napolean revived the practice from 1804 until its final abolition in 1848

The Dutch East India Co signed an international agreement to abolish slavery in 1814

George III signed a law abolishing slavery in the British Isles in 1807. It would be abolished in the rest of the empire in 1833

Spain abolished slavery in Spain and all of its colonies in 1811

We did not limit slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, which technically only freed slaves in Confederate States. Not until the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 did the US officially abolish slavery everywhere, and that only after years of bitter, deadly fighting over the issue

 

[JEBland]

None of the following is directed at anyone in this thread as an accusation.

I think that the people arguing for/against CRT should have a common definition of racism. But I don't think that's possible because CRT has redefined it in a way that is unacceptable to those arguing against CRT.

This redefinition is a lot of the problem.

Reasonable definitions of racism are rejected by the proponents of CRT. The refusal to accept the other's definition is mutual. For a concrete example, I define racism as a race- or ethnicity-based prejudice, then systemic or other forms of racism racism form subsets of all ways to be racist (distinctions between race and ethnicity or even color within a can be further elaborated on when that distinction is needed, but these are often conflated colloquially). The proponents of CRT that I've met or seen speak on say YouTube reject this and instead propose that black people can't be racist because they cannot currently exercise national systemic prejudice that favors them.

The main problem that I see with this is that it is just a semantical trick to get around prejudices that some black people have against others (e.g. white people) to skirt around issues of individual racism. Another example: a black person dismissing a white person's argument because the white person is born with pale skin. Under my definition above, this would be racist, but under a CRT-aligned-person's definition, this cannot be racist because they've redefined racism to deflect that criticism. Something following this that I have seen is that if a white person disagrees with that, then it must be because that white person is racist.

The CRT foundational question of "is there a systematic bias against [group]" is a perfectly fine question. Rejecting due process or the analysis of a set of data in the name of correcting or even determining such biases are not okay. And redefining emotionally charged words to manipulate others is also not fine. These are the tactics I have seen by proponents of CRT.




I've also got (what I believe are constructive) criticisms of the OPs argument, but I'll save that for later.

 

[BugI02]

Yep. Just watch. I'm not going to insult anybody, but somehow in pushing my opinion, I'm gonna somehow get blamed if it closes.

Perhaps if you just offered your opinion rather than pushed it ...

 

[jamil]

This is true. But this is also true... "While the North did not fight to end slavery, the South fought to preserve it."

Eh, it was about slavery. Both sides. But that's probably for another thread.

 

[jamil]

None of the following is directed at anyone in this thread as an accusation.


This redefinition is a lot of the problem.

Reasonable definitions of racism are rejected by the proponents of CRT. The refusal to accept the other's definition is mutual. For a concrete example, I define racism as a race- or ethnicity-based prejudice, then systemic or other forms of racism racism form subsets of all ways to be racist (distinctions between race and ethnicity or even color within a can be further elaborated on when that distinction is needed, but these are often conflated colloquially). The proponents of CRT that I've met or seen speak on say YouTube reject this and instead propose that black people can't be racist because they cannot currently exercise national systemic prejudice that favors them.

The main problem that I see with this is that it is just a semantical trick to get around prejudices that some black people have against others (e.g. white people) to skirt around issues of individual racism. Another example: a black person dismissing a white person's argument because the white person is born with pale skin. Under my definition above, this would be racist, but under a CRT-aligned-person's definition, this cannot be racist because they've redefined racism to deflect that criticism. Something following this that I have seen is that if a white person disagrees with that, then it must be because that white person is racist.

The CRT foundational question of "is there a systematic bias against [group]" is a perfectly fine question. Rejecting due process or the analysis of a set of data in the name of correcting or even determining such biases are not okay. And redefining emotionally charged words to manipulate others is also not fine. These are the tactics I have seen by proponents of CRT.




I've also got (what I believe are constructive) criticisms of the OPs argument, but I'll save that for later.

I agree with a lot of this. I especially like the language around the semantic trick to get around the racism that some Black people have.

I don't the highlighted does justice to what racism is. If racism is bad, then it's something intentional, and nefarious, and I think the definition needs to reflect that. There have been enough studies into the subject of biases and prejudice that we know it's is a function of human behavior that is generally innate in everyone. So just because the natural instinctive prejudice or bias happens to be about race doesn't make the person racist. Humans are naturally prejudice in favor of ourselves and our tribe. I think a proper definition of racism would draw a distinction from what is human instincts. It's then when it goes beyond instincts to something more intentional and nefarious, that's when it becomes racist. So I think racism is more like a strong racial group dislike or hatred. Like thinking race implies something superior.

I don't think CRT academics would agree with my definition at all. It's not sufficiently critical of White people.

 

[JEBland]

I agree with a lot of this. I especially like the language around the semantic trick to get around the racism that some Black people have.

I don't the highlighted does justice to what racism is. If racism is bad, then it's something intentional, and nefarious, and I think the definition needs to reflect that. There have been enough studies into the subject of biases and prejudice that we know it's is a function of human behavior that is generally innate in everyone. So just because the natural instinctive prejudice or bias happens to be about race doesn't make the person racist. Humans are naturally prejudice in favor of ourselves and our tribe. I think a proper definition of racism would draw a distinction from what is human instincts. It's then when it goes beyond instincts to something more intentional and nefarious, that's when it becomes racist. So I think racism is more like a strong racial group dislike or hatred. Like thinking race implies something superior.

I don't think CRT academics would agree with my definition at all. It's not sufficiently critical of White people.

I typically then specify explicit vs. implicit biases when discussing these things (typically with other people in their 20s like I am). People over emphasize implicit biases vs. purposeful malicious acts. Intent matters.

To put it short, I'm totally fine with your refining of the definition.

 

[KG1]

I think one of CRTs goals is to get all white people to admit that they are inherently racists and that just rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Being called any kind of racist unfairly denotes a serious negative image of evil intent on the part of all white people.

 

[HoughMade]

I think one of CRTs goals is to get all white people to admit that they are inherently racists and that just rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Being called any kind of racist unfairly denotes a serious negative image of evil intent on the part of all white people.

Tell me about it. I'm doing my best to raise my kids as non-racist.

Like, the other day, my son referred to a person at work having colored hair. I corrected him and told him the proper term is "afro".

 

[jamil]

I think one of CRTs goals is to get all white people to admit that they are inherently racists and that just rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Being called any kind of racist unfairly denotes a serious negative image of evil intent on the part of all white people.

Insisting that an entire race has a character trait inherent uniquely to the race is racist. What sucks is that we can't say that in public unless we're willing to face some harsh consequences. It needs to be said. Even more than that, free societies usually kill bad ideas by bringing to the light how bad they are. It's how MLK defeated the racist institutions that existed then.

 

[KLB]

I agree with a lot of this. I especially like the language around the semantic trick to get around the racism that some Black people have.

I don't the highlighted does justice to what racism is. If racism is bad, then it's something intentional, and nefarious, and I think the definition needs to reflect that. There have been enough studies into the subject of biases and prejudice that we know it's is a function of human behavior that is generally innate in everyone. So just because the natural instinctive prejudice or bias happens to be about race doesn't make the person racist. Humans are naturally prejudice in favor of ourselves and our tribe. I think a proper definition of racism would draw a distinction from what is human instincts. It's then when it goes beyond instincts to something more intentional and nefarious, that's when it becomes racist. So I think racism is more like a strong racial group dislike or hatred. Like thinking race implies something superior.

I don't think CRT academics would agree with my definition at all. It's not sufficiently critical of White people.

When did racism become simply racial prejudice?

 

[jamil]

When did racism become simply racial prejudice?

I think through colloquial use. Someone says something that's prejudicial and then someone calls them racist. And then that's what people learn is the definition. Same with Stereotypes.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Tell me about it. I'm doing my best to raise my kids as non-racist.

Like, the other day, my son referred to a person at work having colored hair. I corrected him and told him the proper term is "afro".

Hmmmm. Afro may, in fact, be a racist term. Let’s check...

Readers Respond: Which Racial Terms Make You Cringe? (Published 2017)

The words and phrases that you find bothersome when it comes to race.

www.nytimes.com

Ah. Nevermind. You’re good, For now.

 

[BigRed]

TRUTH SPOKEN HERE.

 

[BigRed]

When did racism become simply racial prejudice?

When everything is racism, nothing is racism.

 

[NKBJ]

The war between the States was not to end slavery. It was to enforce the union.

Deified Lincoln himself said as much.

Just an important point to be noted.... not going to hijack the thread.

Spot on. Lincoln got the job done. With a little help from Tsar Alexander II and others but it worked out better than expected.

 

[BigRed]

Spot on. Lincoln got the job done. With a little help from Tsar Alexander II and others but it worked out better than expected.

And a union of consent was replaced with a union by force.

Claiming Lincoln preserved the union is like the abusive husband who kills his wife, as she is trying to walk away from the abusive marriage, claiming he preserved the marriage.

(Though to Lincoln's credit, he did it more than 600,000 times)