CRT: Critical Race Theory as Bogeyman

[Vociferous]

The importance of teaching CRT is to make people aware that the unconscious bias exists so it becomes a factor in decision making. We can not go back and change the past. The best option is to be aware so that we do better now.

“When you hear people talk about implicit bias in popular media, there is often this assumption that you do this implicit bias training and the effects stick around for a long time,” Forscher said. “What we found is that barely any of the studies that we captured in our analysis even attempted to assess changes over time.”
...
“It could even be true that implicit bias doesn’t have a strong impact on behavior.
https://news.uark.edu/articles/4845...n-unconscious-bias-and-its-effect-on-behavior

But while implicit bias trainings are multiplying, few rigorous evaluations of these programs exist. There are exceptions; some implicit bias interventions have been conducted empirically among health care professionals and college students. These interventions have been proven to lower scores on the Implicit Association Test (IAT), the most commonly used implicit measure of prejudice and stereotyping. But to date, none of these interventions has been shown to result in permanent, long-term reductions of implicit bias scores or, more importantly, sustained and meaningful changes in behavior (i.e., narrowing of racial/ethnic clinical treatment disparities).
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-problem-with-implicit-bias-training/​

I've taken implicit bias tests and have no significant unconscious biases.

 

[billvon]

I've taken implicit bias tests and have no significant unconscious biases.

Nope. You do. We all do. We evolved them because they were useful to humans in a prehistory society.

What you have proven with that test is you are successfully counteracting them. You do so because you have decided at a higher level that such biases are counterproductive, and so are working to ensure that they do not control your behavior (or, in this case, your answers on a test.)

 

[Vociferous]

I've taken implicit bias tests and have no significant unconscious biases.

Nope. You do. We all do. We evolved them because they were useful to humans in a prehistory society.

What you have proven with that test is you are successfully counteracting them. You do so because you have decided at a higher level that such biases are counterproductive, and so are working to ensure that they do not control your behavior (or, in this case, your answers on a test.)

Apparently, you've never taken one. Implicit bias tests are based on response times that I can't imagine a way to counteract. Go ahead, try it and report your results back to us. Unless of course you haven't "decided at a higher level that such biases are counterproductive." But then, wouldn't that mean you agree with your unconscious biases?

Yes, everyone has biases, but not everyone has significant unconscious biases related to race. Maybe you can't comprehend that, due to whatever upbringing you had.

 

[billvon]

Yes, everyone has biases, but not everyone has significant unconscious biases related to race. Maybe you can't comprehend that, due to whatever upbringing you had.

So you do have significant unconscious biases, and your original statement was incorrect. Thank you for agreeing with me. (And you even got a personal attack in, so it must be a good day for you.)

 

[Vociferous]

Yes, everyone has biases, but not everyone has significant unconscious biases related to race. Maybe you can't comprehend that, due to whatever upbringing you had.

So you do have significant unconscious biases, and your original statement was incorrect. Thank you for agreeing with me. (And you even got a personal attack in, so it must be a good day for you.)

Please, for the love of God, learn how to read.

 

[James R]

Yep, that checks out. When people can't defend their own words or claims, they often try to deflect, accuse others, or anything to avoid the corner they've painted themselves into, and when that fails, they simply beg off.

You didn't read my post, or else you didn't understand what I was saying to you. Pity about that. Try again.

 

[iceaura]

Yes, everyone has biases, but not everyone has significant unconscious biases related to race.

Everyone in the US who can quickly and easily and accurately identify people as belonging to a given US race (such as "black") has significant unconscious biases related to US race.

Implicit bias tests are based on response times that I can't imagine a way to counteract.

Your failures of imagination are not shared by everyone else.
It's fairly obvious that anyone who can beat a standard lie detector test can at least modify or partly control an implicit bias test. I know for a fact that I can produce a reading of zero bias, black favorable bias, and white favorable bias, on every implicit bias test I have encountered - but you already have me classified as superman based on my ability to help a drunk out of the back seat of my car with one hand, so maybe I'm not an informative example.

However: Racial biases are easily visible in your posting here - you have produced entire posts that consist of nothing but parroted racial stereotypes and bigoted perceptions founded on racial bias (your inability to recognize the effects of systemic racism on the accumulated wealth of black households, for example). So either your biases are explicit, or your imagination has not caught up with your own capabilities (which you share with many psychopaths and sociopaths, btw - is the existence of such people something you acknowledge?).

“It could even be true that implicit bias doesn’t have a strong impact on behavior.

Racial bias has a very strong and occasionally dominant influence on the behavior of most police forces, financial institutions, AI facial recognition software, medical care delivery, and elementary education classroom parctices, in the US.

Whether that solidly and repeatedly verified fact of US society is a consequence of "implicit" bias or overt and explicit bias can be the subject of another thread, if you're interested.

 

[billvon]

Please, for the love of God, learn how to read.

Ah! So you are suggesting that you have no biases whatsoever, and that the millions of years of evolution that provided us with a tendency towards homophily do not apply to you.

Very good. I bet you even believe that yourself. Dunning-Kruger indeed.

 

[Vociferous]

You didn't read my post, or else you didn't understand what I was saying to you. Pity about that. Try again.

Yeah, yeah. Keep trying to save face while fleeing from the discussion.

Ah! So you are suggesting that you have no biases whatsoever, and that the millions of years of evolution that provided us with a tendency towards homophily do not apply to you.

Very good. I bet you even believe that yourself. Dunning-Kruger indeed.

Let's see if a third time is the charm with your comprehension:

"not everyone has significant unconscious biases related to race"​

No? Just projecting your Dunning-Kruger? Okay. I'll just let you stew in it.

 

[iceaura]

"not everyone has significant unconscious biases related to race"

Everyone who can identify the US race of a typical US citizen in less than a tenth of a second has significant implicit biases related to race.

Whether they are unconscious or not is an interesting question - we know they are denied, despite their flagrancy, by people like you, but pre-established prevalences of dishonesty and bad faith are sufficient explanations for that - subconscious psychiatric operations somehow maintained as unrecognized in the face of multiple illustrations and provisions of evidence are not necessary.

 

[Tiassa]

What It Looks Like

Jeffrey Sachs↱ explains the basic summary:

It has been an extraordinary month for educational gag orders. Over the last three weeks, 71 bills have been introduced or prefiled in state legislatures across the country, a rate of roughly three bills per day. For over a year now, PEN America has been tracking these and similar bills. This is where things stand today.

• Since January 2021, 122 educational gag order bills have been introduced or prefiled in 33 different states
• 10 have become law in 9 states
• 88 are currently live​

Of those currently live:

• 84 target K-12 schools
• 38 target higher education
• 48 include a mandatory punishment for those found in violation​

​

The quick take for social media↱ includes a particular detail: "Over the last three weeks, 71 educational gag orders (aka 'anti-CRT bills') have been introduced or prefiled. That's more than half of 122 proposed since January 2021." It is discernible in the PEN America article, but sometimes the concise point makes the point: This is not some phenomenal trend occurring across the American political spectrum, but, rather, a momentum occurring almost entirely within a particular, limited political range. In American parlance: This isn't a bothsides thing.

But history is complicated, and can seem messy. For instance, thinking back through various complaints, from the contemporary outcry against "cancel culture", all the way back to a yesteryear bawling about "political correctness", the underlying commonality is that they are countercomplaints, or even counterrevolutionary complaints, and inasmuch as any of those complaints were ever to be construed on behalf of free speech, it seems worth observing that these gag order bills styled against "Critical Race Theory" happen to coincide with the sympathies of those countercomplaints.

And if we need any more of an injection of American traditionalism, Indiana HB 1040, which smacks of both the anti-gay state ballots of the 1990s, and the Red Scare of the 1950s. Sachs explains:

After rattling off a similar list of prohibited ideas, it mandates that teachers adopt a posture of impartiality in any conversation about controversial historical events. But it then goes on to state that in the run-up to a general election, students must be taught that:

Socialism, Marxism, communism, totalitarianism, or similar political systems are incompatible with and in conflict with the principles of freedom upon which the United States was founded. In addition, students must be instructed that if any of these political systems were to replace the current form of government, the government of the United States would be overthrown and existing freedoms under the Constitution of the United States would no longer exist. As such, socialism, Marxism, communism, totalitarianism, or similar political systems are detrimental to the people of the United States.​

Such a mandate for a public school teacher is alarming enough in its own right. But requiring that teachers deliver these lessons while also maintaining a posture of impartiality is positively farcical. Or at least it would be, if the consequences of failure – in this case, civil suits, loss of state funding and accreditation, and professional discipline up to and including termination – were not so dire.

Many of Indiana’s bills feature such extreme penalties. In addition to HB 1040, two others threaten teachers with termination. Six include a private right of action. And three would punish schools by cutting them off from all state tuition dollars and levying a fine of up to $10,000 per student subject to the violation.​

Or HB 1231, which "prohibits teachers from 'introducing any controversial subject matter or current event germane to the subject matter being taught'", though that is likely a typographical error, but by language of the bill, "schools would be prohibited from urging students to join a particular 'political affiliation, ideology, sectarian [sic], or religion'", and that would include private schools, "like Calvary Lutheran, Faith Community Christian, and St. Barnabas". Sachs suggests, "such mistakes are a persistent feature of this year’s bills".

And 1231 includes a "transparency" section, and this is something speech advocaccy groups like PEN America are just starting to wrap their heads around:

For the most part, these bills mandate that schools post the titles and authors of all curricular materials on a publicly accessible website. Some also require schools to provide copies of those materials and to allow parents to opt their children out of any assignment or lesson they find objectionable, creating a kind of à la carte public education. Still others would impose on teachers a duty to inform parents if their child displays signs of “gender nonconformity” or seeks to join a student club “involving sexuality, gender or gender identity.” With these bills, parental control expands to the point where teachers’ discretion disappears.

Other bills seek to achieve transparency through on-the-job surveillance. In Florida, one lawmaker recently introduced legislation that would allow parents to scrutinize video recordings of their children’s classrooms for signs of “critical race theory.” Another in Mississippi wants to stream them live over the internet. And at least two bills in Missouri propose letting members of the public attend teachers’ professional development workshops. The entire effort seems designed more to intimidate teachers than ensure they deliver a quality education.

Yet even compared to all the foregoing, Indiana’s HB 1231 is special. In addition to the website, it would also require schools to permit a taxpayer (not parent, but taxpayer) to “observe classroom instruction at any time requested by the taxpayer.” Schools may limit the number of observers present in a classroom, but only if “the number of taxpayers present to observe the class exceeds five.” Even at the best of times, this provision would be grounds for concern. These are not the best of times.​

In a way, none of this is especially surprising. The sloppy blatancy of it all, in its American context, means they're really pissed off, this time, so it is kind of an impressiveley seething lack of subtlety. But for as much is the same as it ever was, the plainly apparent point is that the lamentations about political correctness, and antiliberal pretenses against elitism, really were as much about American traditional supremacism as it seemed.

There is a saying, a seemingly easy and conventional joke, that someday we might look back at all this and laugh, together. But there are a couple important conditions generally left unspoken, in part because they ought to be obvious. In order for rivals or disputants to look back and laugh at their own triviality in a dispute, that trivial aspect must actually be real. The other important point is that whatever it people are supposed to look back at and laugh about needs to be in the past, a circumstance that is generally finished. But that's the thing: When will this part be over?

Think of it, even at our community scale: There is a joke I refer to as blaming the penguin↗, and it has to do with the idea that the fact of opposition somehow forces people to support what it opposes. One of my favorites from around here has to do with Barack Obama somehow forcing good, nonracist people to say racist things; another I nearly can't explain, that Trump voters were somehow victimized into voting for Trump because some liberal somewhere offended their sensibilities. Compared to the world at large, it's much akin to self-professed slow learner James Lindsay's anti-feminism, and not unrelated to Doc Peterson's flirtation with enforced monogamy.

And if life provides examples, then some details are inevitabilities of time passing, and if part of the question is to wonder why the complaint against "cancel culture" seems so quiet about certain censorship, it is at least arguable that was always the point, and, more particularly, at least one prominent critic of cancel culture has emerged in recent days↱ openly legitimizing censorship. No wonder the Harper's Letter organizers didn't―... er. never mind.

Nothing about this should surprise anyone, but that would also mean there are plenty who are anxiously pretending to not be looking for an excuse for having lent their scolding sympathy to supremacism along the way. Come on, we all knew the whole time, but apparently it was somehow unfair and elitist and evil censorship if we didn't clear the deck for the censors.
____________________

Notes:

@JeffreyASachs. "BREAKING: Over the last three weeks, 71 educational gag orders (aka "anti-CRT bills") have been introduced or prefiled. That's more than half of 122 proposed since January 2021. And they're getting worse." Twitter. 24 January 2022. Twitter.com. 24 January 2022. https://bit.ly/3o3Ondo

@JuddLegum. "Surprise! Self-proclaimed free speech champion @ggreenwald is fine with the right-wing push to legislatively ban 'Critical Race Theory' because, he says, censorship is not something that can exist in schools …". Twitter. 29 January 2022. Twitter.com. 3 February 2022. https://bit.ly/3s2caeL

Sachs, Jeffrey. "Steep Rise in Gag Orders, Many Sloppily Drafted". PEN America. 24 January 2022. PEN.org. 3 February 2022. https://bit.ly/3rW5Vci

 

[scorpius]

Just to toss my two nickles in.
Theres only one race,,a HUMAN race.
People come in many shades colors but we are all humans.

Wars are about tribalism,usualy spurred by religious belief that We are better then Them.
And need to expand take over others land,so we can have more then others.

There wont be peace in the world until everyone respects ALL other nations.

How many of you can do that?
If you cant youre part of the problem

 

[billvon]

Just to toss my two nickles in.
Theres only one race,,a HUMAN race.
People come in many shades colors but we are all humans.

Absolutely.

Unfortunately, many people do not see it that way. We have to fight our own innate biases (and we all have them) to come even close to that.

There wont be peace in the world until everyone respects ALL other nations. How many of you can do that? If you cant youre part of the problem

I respect most other nations. North Korea? Not so much.

 

[Tiassa]

CRT, the Great Replacement, and Mass Murder

"In short," Ben Collins↱ summarizes, "the manifesto is a rant from a 4chan addict, obsessed with 'the Great Replacement,' CRT and white grievance"; his tweet observes, "The story has some details."

The details, for NBC News:

A manifesto claiming to be written by the suspect in a mass shooting at a Buffalo supermarket that killed 10 laid out specific plans to attack Black people and repeatedly cited the "Great Replacement" Theory, the false idea that a cabal is attempting to replace white Americans with non-white people through immigration, interracial marriage and eventually violence ....

.... The manifesto, which was not modified since it was posted on Thursday, includes elaborate details of a planned shooting. The document claims the suspect chose Buffalo because it was the city with the highest number of Black people in his vicinity.

Eleven of the 13 people shot at the Tops Friendly Market are Black, police said ....

.... The manifesto includes dozens of pages antisemitic and racist memes, repeatedly citing the racist "Great Replacement” conspiracy theory frequently pushed by white supremacists, which falsely alleges white people are being "replaced” in America as part of an elaborate Jewish conspiracy theory. Other memes use tropes and discredited data to denigrate the intelligence of non-white people ....

.... The document also claims "critical race theory,” a recent right-wing talking point that has come to generally encompass teaching about race in school, is part of a Jewish plot, and a reason to justify mass killings of Jews.

(Collins↱)​

None of this is new, of course. In fact, a lot of socmed chatter observes a lot of the manifesto is outright plagiarized, e.g., Futrelle↱:

So big chunks of the Buffalo shooter's manifesto are plagiarized directly from the Christchurch shooters manifesto. But other portions are original, or are plagiarized from texts not online. Has anyone figured out what sections are plagiarized and which aren't?​

And no, that list isn't circulating yet. Still, there is a certain degree to which this is simply not surprising. This sort of talk has risen from alt-chan murmur and buzz into mainstream American conservatism:

"Great Replacement" theory has recently received support from traditional power centers of the American right. According to an AP-NORC poll released this week, 1 in 3 U.S. adults believe there is an ongoing effort "to replace U.S.-born Americans with immigrants for electoral gains.”

Fox News' Tucker Carlson has repeatedly pushed "replacement” rhetoric on his show. "I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term 'replacement,' if you suggest for the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World,” Carlson said in April of 2021.

(Collins)​

There is a lot going on, but I do in the moment pause to think back and recall the people who told us to not get so worked up, to not be so paternalistic and condescending, the people who mitigated the blowing off of steam and made all sorts of excuses along the way. We can only wonder what you thought would happen.

(Okay, no, not really, but you put on such performances about not supporting that stuff, just criticizing the critique against it even for merely existing, and how dare anyone suggest you actually sympathize with that sort of stuff. And, yes, if you really meant all that indignance, then we can only wonder what you thought would happen. Congratulations: You either got what you wanted, or else you really are just that stupid. Either way, don't be proud.)
____________________

Notes:

@DavidFutrelle. "So big chunks of the Buffalo shooter's manifesto are plagiarized directly from the Christchurch shooters manifesto. But other portions are original, or are plagiarized from texts not online. Has anyone figured out what sections are plagiarized and which aren't?" Twitter. 14 May 2022. Twitter.com. 14 May 2022. https://bit.ly/3lhaWcs

@oneunderscore__. "New from me: I tried to write about the Buffalo suspect's manifesto responsibly and comprehensively here. The story has some details. In short, the manifesto is a rant from a 4chan addict, obsessed with 'the Great Replacement,' CRT and white grievance." Twitter. 14 May 2022. Twitter.com. 14 May 2022. https://bit.ly/3l7WT9k

Collins, Ben. "The Buffalo supermarket shooting suspect posted an apparent manifesto repeatedly citing 'Great Replacement' theory". NBC News. 14 May 2022. https://nbcnews.to/3NeDe3n

 

[Tiassa]

Via CNN↱:

The 18-year-old accused of killing 10 Black people at a Buffalo, New York, supermarket last month apologized to his family for carrying out the mass shooting, writing in a note he "had to commit this attack" because he cared "for the future of the White race," according to court documents.

Details about the handwritten note, found by the FBI in Payton S. Gendron's bedroom, were revealed in a criminal complaint filed Wednesday by prosecutors in the US Attorney's Office for the Western District of New York, as the US Justice Department announced multiple federal hate crime charges against the suspect. Some charges carry the potential for the death penalty.

"Gendron's motive for the mass shooting was to prevent Black people from replacing white people and eliminating the white race, and to inspire others to commit similar attacks," the complaint says.​

And, again, for all people sympathized through decades of increasingly overt supremacism, mitigating and making excuses and boohooing about the paternalism and condescension of equality, don't be proud.
____________________

Notes:

Boxer, Sarah and Dakin Andone. "Buffalo shooting suspect said he committed massacre 'for the future of the White race' in note apologizing to his family, affidavit says". CNN. 16 June 2022. CNN.com. 16 June 2022. https://cnn.it/39CTexX

 

[Tiassa]

The Obvious Question

​

As Florida prepares to teach students that slavery is good for slaves, a certain question looms: Can we call it racsim yet?

Follow-up question: Is anyone ashamed?

People should think back on their own words. Many pretended to fret about the indececny of calling racism by its name. You can still find people pretending that "racist" is just as rough a word as "nigger". But for all the years of talk about liberal elitism, or accusing everyone who disagrees of racism, the historical result keeps suggesting the word was apt. Plenty tried to establish a "free speech" pretense, but it was the sort of free speech that depended on the silence of dissent. Which, in its way, is why we ought not be surprised that the politics have led to massive censorship campaigns in multiple states.

It's like the time someone wagged at me that we shouldn't be merely dismissing certain people and their views as obviously crazy, or motivated by racism or sexism or any of those other bad things. The sore-thumb exaggeration stuck out at the time, but has aged worse than poorly.¹ An underlying question precedes us, reaching back over thirty years, at least: What did you think they were doing?

The question recognizes a particular distinction; someone may despise what another says but defend the right to say it, and in such a manner is not explicitly sympathetic to the despised idea. Except, that's an abstraction that washes out other distinctions. If the credential that one is "not a" something notorious should be respected, there are questions of function—what rhetoric does and how it works and what it means when put into practice—to account for.

As I have asked before↗, what did you think they were talking about? What did you think they were doing?

Middle school students in Florida will soon be taught that slavery gave Black people a "personal benefit" because they "developed skills."

After the Florida Board of Education approved new standards for African American history on Wednesday, high school students will be taught an equally distorted message: that a deadly white mob attack against Black residents of Ocoee, Florida, in 1920 included "acts of violence perpetrated against and by African Americans."

Dozens of Black residents were killed in the massacre, which was perpetrated to stop them from voting ....

.... Approval of the new standards is a win for the DeSantis administration, which has effectively sought to create a new educational agenda that shields white students from feeling any sense of guilt for wrongs perpetrated against people of color. The Florida governor signed the "Stop WOKE Act" last year to do just that, restricting how issues of race are taught in public schools and workplaces.

In keeping with the administration's crusade against "wokeness," Education Commissioner Manny Diaz defended the new standards against criticism, saying, "This is an in-depth, deep dive into African American history, which is clearly American history as Governor DeSantis has said, and what Florida has done is expand it," Action News Jax reported.

Paul Burns, the Florida Department of Education's chancellor of K-12 public schools, also insisted the new standards provide an exhaustive representation of African American history.

"Our standards are factual, objective standards that really teach the good, the bad and the ugly," he was quoted as saying Wednesday by Florida Phoenix. He denied the new standards portray slavery as beneficial.​

The thing is that Florida has become about as subtle as a Sciforums thread. And, sure, there is a reason Florida conservatives have become the very things that conservatives and their not-a-conservative echoes had spent so much effort brushing aside, pushing away, mocking, and counteraccusing.

But if that whole ridiculous pretense about feeling ashamed to be white is something we are obliged to take seriously, then we owe them honest recognition that they are not capable of anything smarter. The most influential source of anti-white racism I've seen over the last forty years has been white conservatives.

Along the way, though, it's the wannabe inbetweeners who stand out, the sniveling notas who would be offended to be identified with what they advocate or defenend, who do it because someone has to, because it's not fair if they don't, or whatever reason they can make up in the moment in order to justify themselves according to a standard that even they recognize.

But will they recognize themselves?²

This is what it was for; this is what conservatives were working toward. What the hell did anyone else think was going on?

And that will remain an enduring and particular question for historians looking back over the period, a likely dearth to be sparsely reconciled not by the psychoanalytical meaning of history in and of itself, but its intersections with rare, and mostly accidental, clear expressions. It's kind of like an old song, when every little thing the reflex does leaves us answered with a question mark.
____________________

Notes:

¹ I wonder, sometimes, if it is rare or inevitable that I might encounter certain living examples, and the attendant hows and whys. It's like watching someone first pretend they didn't say it, and then pretend they were right. In certain ways, people seem to do this a lot, but it's not always so apparent or distilled, and that's what makes this or that occasion extraordinary. Sometimes, things age so poorly that someone doesn't simply pretend they didn't say it, but also turns around and pretend they were justfied in saying it.

² cf., "Beware of Fake Progressives", #10↑.​

Quinn, Allison. "Florida Schools Will Teach How Slavery Brought 'Personal Benefit' to Black People". The Daily Beast. 20 July 2023. TheDailyBeast.com. 20 July 2023. https://bit.ly/44DMwz5

Spoiler

 

[James R]

The Obvious Question

​

As Florida prepares to teach students that slavery is good for slaves, a certain question looms: Can we call it racsim yet?

I assume that Tiassa did not mean to imply that slavery is always racist. Certainly the American experience of slavery was racist, but historically there are plenty of examples of slavery in which race was neither a motivator nor was it advanced as a justification.

People should think back on their own words. Many pretended to fret about the indececny of calling racism by its name.

No references are cited for this. It might be useful to see some examples.

It's like the time someone wagged at me that we shouldn't be merely dismissing certain people and their views as obviously crazy, or motivated by racism or sexism or any of those other bad things.

Sounds like reasonable "wagging" to me. You'd shouldn't prejudge people. Judge them on their actions, not on what you assume a priori are their characteristics. That fits nicely with not being a racist.

The question recognizes a particular distinction; someone may despise what another says but defend the right to say it, and in such a manner is not explicitly sympathetic to the despised idea. Except, that's an abstraction that washes out other distinctions.

Tiassa appears to be saying that we can recognise more than one "distinction" in people. Seems kinda obvious.

Middle school students in Florida will soon be taught that slavery gave Black people a "personal benefit" because they "developed skills."​

I would be interested to see some details about this. Are there certain prescribed texts or curricula that will mandate this teaching?

Along the way, though, it's the wannabe inbetweeners who stand out, the sniveling notas ...

None of these people are named in Tiassa's post, although they "stand out" somehow. Who are they?

---
What does any of this have to do with critical race theory?

 

[Bells]

I assume that Tiassa did not mean to imply that slavery is always racist.

Dude!

Come on!

Is this really a hill you want to die on?

Certainly the American experience of slavery was racist, but historically there are plenty of examples of slavery in which race was neither a motivator nor was it advanced as a justification.

Perhaps you should go back and consider the context of this discussion and the thread topic...

It might make things a bit clearer.

I would be interested to see some details about this. Are there certain prescribed texts or curricula that will mandate this teaching?

Have you not been aware that in red states in the US, a certain revision is taking place when it comes to American history?

And it is not just in the US. John Howard:

“I do hold the view that the luckiest thing that happened to this country was being colonised by the British,” he said.

“Not that they were perfect by any means, but they were infinitely more successful and beneficent colonisers than other European countries.”​

The British colonisation of Australia was one of their most brutal and deadliest in their history. They were certainly more successful than other European countries when it came to their attempts to take everything, deny First Nations Peoples their human rights and any rights, not to mention a couple of centuries of policies that were genocidal. In that regard, he is correct, they were "more successful". But would First Nations Peoples consider it "lucky"? No.

But let's go back to the US and Florida in particular.

DeSantis' latest move is not unique or new. Attempting to erase history by rewriting it is a tried and true method, particularly for despots. But let's consider what they want to teach children and students at all levels of education in Florida:

In early 2021, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) — already clearly thinking about the 2024 Republican presidential nomination — signed H.B. 5 into law. It mandated that the state “create an integrated K-12 civic education curriculum” that defended the primacy of democracy.

The new curriculum field-tested last year also downplayed the issue of slavery. A teacher told a Jacksonville television station that one part of the curriculum suggested that “the founders, quote, ‘did all they could,’ on the issue of slavery, that was what they were trying to convince us of.” Another component of the curriculum suggested that slavery in colonial America was only a small fraction of slavery elsewhere in the hemisphere.

By late 2021, DeSantis had fully leaned into his persona as the Republican battling “wokeism,” whatever that meant at the moment. He advocated the “Stop W.O.K.E. Act,” which would, among other things, “[take] a stand against the state-sanctioned racism that is critical race theory,” as he said in a statement. “We won’t allow Florida tax dollars to be spent teaching kids to hate our country or to hate each other.”

Once signed into law, Florida’s Board of Education was tasked with revising the overall social studies curriculum in the state. Those revisions were made public last week, immediately triggering outcry over the way in which slavery was addressed. At one point, for example, the curriculum recommends that a discussion of the work performed by enslaved people consider “how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”​

DeSantis then went on to defend his comments.

They have literally outlawed critical thinking and addressing the realities of US history in that state.

Here is a link to Florida's State Academic Standards for Social Studies for 2023: https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/20653/urlt/6-4.pdf

These are the subjects that fall under that banner as per their standards:



Do you know how many times the word "racism" appears in that document? Three times.

If we consider US history, the history of racism, the manner in which racism has affected all minorities, from the time of colonisation, through to slavery and beyond, to how minorities and particularly African Americans have been impacted by entrenched systemic racism in US society at all levels (from affecting their fundamental human rights, their over-representation in the criminal justice system, access to housing, education, healthcare, employment).. A curriculum on social studies only mentions the word "racism" 3 times and does not instruct to discuss systemic racism that persists in the US to this day. In fact, they are very clear and set out what can be covered.

As for the text that you are questioning because you do not seem to believe it. From the curriculum standards for social studies for this year in Florida that I linked above. Here is a screen shot:



These are instructions to schools on what students are to be taught.

I hope this clears up any of your confusion.

None of these people are named in Tiassa's post, although they "stand out" somehow. Who are they?

Right now James, you are kind of standing out. For example:

I assume that Tiassa did not mean to imply that slavery is always racist. Certainly the American experience of slavery was racist, but historically there are plenty of examples of slavery in which race was neither a motivator nor was it advanced as a justification.

I get you two are at war. But this was some spectacular level of fail.

What does any of this have to do with critical race theory?

Good lord.

This push to rewrite US history and how it is taught in the US is based on the right's angst at "critical race theory". The reason why that curriculum on social studies only mentions the word "racism" 3 times, is because it is a direct response to critical race theory. This might make it make sense for you:

Fox News has mentioned “critical race theory” 1,300 times in less than four months. Why? Because critical race theory (CRT) has become a new bogeyman for people unwilling to acknowledge our country’s racist history and how it impacts the present.​

Or consider this from the same link:

The approach of some Republican-led state legislatures is a method for continuing to roll back racial progress regarding everything from voting rights to police reform. This is a horrible idea and does an injustice to our kids. Laws forbidding any teacher or lesson from mentioning race/racism, and even gender/sexism, would put a chilling effect on what educators are willing to discuss in the classroom and provide cover for those who are not comfortable hearing or telling the truth about the history and state of race relations in the United States. Ironically, “making laws outlawing critical race theory confirms the point that racism is embedded in the law,” as sociologist Victor Ray noted.​

Now, go back to that curriculum standard for Florida and how it mentions the word "racism" 3 times. Two of which were for essentially the exact same thing and the third time to explain scientific racism in connection to the Holocaust.

Do you understand what it has to do with critical race theory now?

 

[billvon]

I assume that Tiassa did not mean to imply that slavery is always racist. Certainly the American experience of slavery was racist . . .

And given that the curriculum in question was American history, then yes - our version of slavery was racist.

Judge them on their actions, not on what you assume a priori are their characteristics.

Not in Florida. In Florida students will be taught that the act of keeping a slave is sometimes a positive.

I would be interested to see some details about this. Are there certain prescribed texts or curricula that will mandate this teaching?

The change to the curriculum is pretty straightforward. In the new Florida State Academic Standards (i.e. the approved state curriculum) there is this notation under the African American History strand*:

SS.68.AA.2.3 :

Examine the various duties and trades performed by slaves (e.g., agricultural work, painting, carpentry, tailoring, domestic service, blacksmithing, transportation).
Benchmark Clarifications:
Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.

(* - they call different history units 'strands' in Florida.)

What does any of this have to do with critical race theory?

Critical race theory is the study of structural racism. Structural racism is racism that is not promulgated by any one person, but rather by structures in society and/or government. One example would be redlining, a practice where banking institutions (not the bankers themselves) routinely denied mortgages to African-Americans. Another example would be a government requirement that children be taught that American slaves learned skills that benefitted them personally.

 

[Tiassa]

Fourth-Wall Notes

I assume that Tiassa did not mean to imply that slavery is always racist

Such is the confusion of unreliable reading comprehension.

No references are cited for this. It might be useful to see some examples.

The easy point would be to remind who would just complain about a longer post↗. Like a coin toss: Heads, complain about a "blog" post; tails, complain that a post doesn't cite enough references.

More subtly: Think about the idea that for as long as you know someone, there are no shared memories to communicate, or rely on, because he just doesn't remember, so every time is like the first time. The result is to remind that for all he might have had to say on a subject in the past, none of it was actually important to him. So even if we go dig up pieces of particular history, such as when we flagged someone for accusing racism, or supported a moderator deleting posts in self-interest so that he could promote the kind of racism that would later come up in a mass shooter's racist manifesto, or when a site administrator backed off the defining aspects of Sciforums because it disrupted racism, what, exactly, would be the point? Meanwhile, one effect of this obliviousness is to reframe what is otherwise already established, e.g., "reasonable 'wagging'".

That forgetfulness has particular implications: You can't ever recall, together, that time when, because the other person doesn't remember. So there are no shared joys, no shared frustration, nor even any utility in trying to figure out what went right or wrong, because the other person just doesn't remember. As a natural phenomenon, it is tragic. As a deliberate pretense, it would do nobody any good. And in that way, it really does seem unbelievable.

Nor does that account for what takes place outside, say, two people, or a small internet community. And here we come up against a question of the passionate but clueless advocate: For as long as one might make a passionate stand, for as much as one might say in such passionate dudgeon, does that person really not know? At some point—

None of these people are named in Tiassa's post, although they "stand out" somehow. Who are they?

—the unawareness seems extraordinary: In addition to compiling however many variations on a theme within our own community over the course of our time, there is also, let's see, the cancel culture panic, dirtbag left, intellectual dark web, something about Rationalists, any number of altchanners, and even particular ranges of leftist class warriors, and that's before we start accounting for editorial boards and pages, voice from nowhere, and a significant sector of the punditry marketplace. And a significant part of what makes this posture unbelievable is that it is so disruptive, as if that is its purpose.¹

†​

To wit, two points:

Sounds like reasonable "wagging" to me. You'd shouldn't prejudge people. Judge them on their actions, not on what you assume a priori are their characteristics. That fits nicely with not being a racist.

This is a misrepresentation, and he either knows it or not↗. Like I said, the statement aged poorly. And the reason it aged poorly is because it turned out that the people in question really were motivated by racism and sexism and other bad things, as such. But, as a matter of basic function, look at the juxtaposition: "Judge them on their actions, not what you assume a priori". It is a sleight pretending an historical vacuum, as if, prior to the original statement there was no evidence for judging certain people's actions.

We might try to argue that dearth as an affirmative statement, but it is facially insupportable to do so: Who among us would argue that prior to 2015-16, there was no evidence of racism, misogyny, supremacism, or conspiracism driving any part of Republican politics? And if no one would, then why would anyone rely on it?

Also, we should take the moment to consider—

What does any of this have to do with critical race theory?

—how unbelievable this question is.

The direct answer is that we are looking at an example of what the conservative political panic about CRT has led to, and it is easy enough to accept this is what it was for.

Or, previously↑: This is what it was for; this is what conservatives were working toward. What the hell did anyone else think was going on?

†​

I would be interested to see some details about this. Are there certain prescribed texts or curricula that will mandate this teaching?

The selection process will go how it goes, but inasmuch as it might prescribe particular textbooks fulfilling these distortions of history, sure, there are few in circulation among home-schoolers, Christian schools, and Texans. Analogously, imagine a school board textbook committee tasked with prescribing a science curriculum based on young-earth Creationism as Intelligent Design.

Moreover, remember, per Quinn↱: "Although education officials say teachers are meant to expand upon the new curriculum in the classroom, critics say teachers are unlikely to do that for fear of being singled out and possibly punished for being too 'woke.'" And it is true, despite other injunction, the "Stop Woke Act" remains in effect for K-12.
____________________

Notes:

¹ Again, consider the alternative that, for all that time and for all one might have had to say on a subject, they really were so unaware of circumstance, or uninformed of the subject matter, the whole time. That sort of futility would seem even more unbelievable.​

Quinn, Allison. "Florida Schools Will Teach How Slavery Brought 'Personal Benefit' to Black People". The Daily Beast. 20 July 2023. TheDailyBeast.com. 27 July 2023. https://bit.ly/44DMwz5