Race as a real thing or as a social construct

I think they do have that power, though. Not because they necessarily should or because any such right was formally bestowed upon them. It’s just a fact of culture in some ways I think. It’s been a pattern for some things in the past (for better or worse) that the sorts of things that are bread and butter in the halls of the academics move out into public discourse at some later time. Other things are trend-setters too, I’m sure - ask any corporate powers or advertisement agencies. We can (and often do) do worse than looking to academia for shepherding our cultural sensibilities.

[content removed with my apologies to Vance for the rude way I responded.]

We may continue to disagree on that point.

1 Like

Content removed by Vance with appreciation to Mervin.

2 Likes

Sorry for the pointed wording … I reworded it to say “Anybody is free to…”

Using a word or phrase in a certain way isn’t a demand. It’s a matter of whether a listener wants to make the effort to understand the claim or not.

Though - in the ensuing discussions this very well does bring us along toward moral demands - if we claim to be bound by any. So I can see your point at that level.

1 Like

So many of the parables fall into this realm. E.g. see my topic posted yesterday: Meanings from parables

Of course, but it is the next step that is most important. That step is to insist on an agreement of what the terms are and what the actual topic is…not what it should be. Then and only then is it legitimate to agree that there are essentially two topics rather than one, and that there are two sets of terms, one for each.

But to the extent that it is true, it is because of the reluctance of the accuser/describer to make it personal. He adjusts the object to be larger and/or more vague than the person to whom he is truly meaning to accuse.

1 Like

If this regarded a scientific term like mesolithic, then I’d understand your point. But this is regarding a term with a tremendous amount of trauma associated with it. There are racists in the non-academic sense still present today, and there are people who have been
wrongly accused of being racists in the non-academic sense by the left, and then there is this claim that an academic can label a person a racist and it shouldn’t be taken as an insult.

Is this supposed to be part of critical race theory? And, is critical race theory Marxist or not?

In an attempt to brush up my understanding of critical theory, I found this on Wikipedia, and it certainly reinforces (for me) the view that we are in the midst of a “darkness at noon” redefinition of terms:

When, in the 1970s and 1980s, Habermas redefined critical social theory as a study of communication, with communicative competence and communicative rationality on the one hand, and distorted communication on the other, the two versions of critical theory began to overlap to a much greater degree than before.

Yeah - having these different operational definitions on it sure does make for a lot of offense and defensiveness - especially when groups make themselves so thin-skinned as that they are ready to take offense at everything they may hear about or from others not in their pre-approved political tribe.

Regarding the Marxism claim - yeah, I’ve heard that a lot too; always from people eager to find any reason at all to write off messages they don’t like. There will be many on the left who embrace Marxism - which is, by definition, a “left” kind of thing after all. But concluding that therefore all “left-leaning” or liberal political ambitions are Marxist, is the equivalent to finding a few “right leaning” people who self-identify as white nationalists or Nazis, and therefore concluding that anybody who leans right must be a Nazi. Would you be impressed with that conclusion as being reality-based? Of course not, any more than insisting that there is a Marxist behind every bush, and critical race theory must be nothing more than that. These are all little more than thinly veiled excuses to burrow down further into one’s own echo chamber and to refuse to deal with any actual reality of what others are saying.

That’s why I’m asking about critical race theory. Being called a racist is an absolute deal breaker though.

Well then - I think you can breath easier in that regard; especially in light of what Christy has written above. Yes - there are voices that do challenge us (collectively) to see how we participate in and are even complicit with remaining systems and structures that codify injustice. And if we insist on taking that all personally all the time - then there is probably little help for that.

1 Like

Reading more about Malcolm Gladwell’s efforts to “look beyond the individual in order to determine how success works and how successful outliers are made” leads me to believe that framing matters in terms of “Liberal/Left/Marxist” vs. “Conservative/Right/Nazi” is not only the least useful way to frame them, it’s misleading and grounds, IMO, for abandoning the terms.

Quoting my new hero, Malcolm Gladwell, he says:

  • “When we observe differences in how individuals succeed in the world our initial thought is always to say, to argue that that is the result of some kind of innate difference in ability.

  • And when we look at the different rates that groups succeed we think that that reflects some underlying innate trait in the characteristics of that group. And that is wrong… what capitalization rates say… is there’s another explanation and that has to do with poverty, with stupidity, and with culture.”

  • “We have a scarcity of achievement… not because we have a scarcity of talent. We have a scarcity of achievement because we’re squandering our talent. And that’s not bad news that’s good news; because it says that this scarcity is not something we have to live with. It’s something we can do something about.”

  • Malcolm Gladwell: Human Potential [19:28]

3 Likes

Human races, to the extent that they are based on actual genetic features such as melanin production levels, reflect very minor differences, and are thus more similar to “variety” than to “race” in common terminology for other species. Human races, biological races, and biological varieties all lack uniform definitions, and the dividing lines are often quite arbitrary.

It is very true that some have much more power than others, and also true that power is very often used to oppress. Focus on power is of great value for seeing where major problems are likely to be. But the “racism is only by the powerful” claim promotes a false us good-them bad dichotomy. More generally, the “power” focus in many social fields tends to present the world as a zero sum game where we have to put others down to get more power for ourselves. In reality, everyone has some power, and none of us use it as well as we should. Identifying specific problems and finding ways to fix them will do much more good than broad categories.

Shifting the definition of racism to focus on power that disadvantages minorities can potentially obscure the problems. For example, it’s worth noting that environmental justice issues often disproportionately affect ethnic minorities. But the root of the problem is rarely racial - it’s more often economic or social - “where’s the cheapest place to put the toxic waste dump?” “does anyone with a connection to the authorities object to putting the factory here?” “where can I afford to live?” (The economic and social disadvantages often trace back in part to the legacy of racism, but are self-perpetuating.) Calling that racism may draw attention to it, but it may direct focus away from other aspects of the problem that are key parts of the solution.

Of course, defining success is part of the problem. If we better valued each individual’s gifts rather than obsessing about certain abilities and devaluing others, that would help.

3 Likes

Let’s be clear, shall I consider this my introduction to critical race theory, and if so how do I understand it in relation to Marxism?

I ask sincerely being unfamiliar with CRT and having a general introductory understanding of Marxism.

Probably so. It’s a shame because I am open to having a conversation. I can recognize the ways in which we benefit from historical injustices. My brief course in the history of the American Indians is simply one of the most appalling lessons I’ve had to learn. Second or third maybe to church history or the middle passage. And Twelve Years a Slave is mind numbing, but what a scene that was at the end where Louis Gosset Jr cries out my name is Solomon Northup. Tears. Pure tears.

Kevin DeYoung being told he is not a white supremacist, but that he sees the world through those eyes, is something else I have a hard time seeing past.

Are you sure about those numbers? I hope we aren’t getting into the “rich Jew” stereotype. If Jewish people earn more it’s because their culture values hard work and education. On the other hand, far too many Evangelicals try to prevent the teaching of history, science, and other topics. And they ban books all the time. How are their children supposed to learn anything with such a disadvantage?

1 Like

Understandable - and commendable.

Do you mean ‘Appalling’ as in how the course was taught - ideological agenda that you found intolerable? Or ‘Appalling’ in terms of what was brought to light about what happened in those times? I’m thinking you mean the latter, but just wanting to make sure I understand you correctly here.

Will have to look up “Twelve Years a Slave” - that sounds interesting.

Appalling as in what was brought to light. Some of our, speaking as an American, Indian policies from the early 20th century are bitterly sad and very hard to put into perspective.

Yes, it’s very well done.

1 Like

Ha! “Critical Variety Theory” has a neutral ring to it… for the moment.

2 Likes