This came up earlier, and because this is the most recent discussion, I'm posting it here - (link to Guardian coverage) entitled English schools must not teach ‘white privilege’ as fact, government warns, as part of some new guidance due out some time soon.
I don't think it's necessarily helpful to flatten the discussions in the US and UK into a single thread.
This came up earlier, and because this is the most recent discussion, I'm posting it here - (link to Guardian coverage) entitled English schools must not teach ‘white privilege’ as fact, government warns, as part of some new guidance due out some time soon. The article starts:
English schools should not teach “contested theories and opinions … such as white privilege” as fact, the government has said prior to the publication of new guidance outlining how teaching certain political issues could break the law.
Schools should avoid promoting “partisan political views” and must instead teach racial and social justice topics in a “balanced and factual manner”, according to the government’s official response to a report on the educational disadvantages faced by white working-class pupils published by the education committee in June.
One of the frustrating things about right-wing Newspeak on subjects like this is their offense when taken literally and their equal offense when they're not taken literally. For example, it seems like a very bad idea to try to "balance" between justice and injustice, as the cited report suggests. Most folks would prefer state actors to be pro-justice and anti-injustice. Taking their plain meaning about balancing between justice and injustice is considered offensive On the other hand suggesting that maybe they have some motive beyond the plain meaning of their utterances also angers them.
I think a similar thing is going on with the hijacking of the term "critical race theory". Those deploying it get angry when you point out that what they're objecting to isn't really critical race theory and they get angry if you try to drill down to figure out what the root of their actual objection is.
@chrisstiles - I wasn't trying to flatten the UK and USA situations into a single thread, but the two situations are confused. When I hear our (British) politicians and commentators discussing race, critical race theory is not uncommonly mentioned. And there is some conflation going on with the discussion of race with assumptions that the situations are similar.
What I was hoping to point out was that:
1) there is a discussion going on on this side of the Atlantic, but the issues are not straightforward;
2) adding some more recent evidence following comments about the UK on page 1.
(Just to point out that as well as podcasts there are transcripts of the podcasts at those links if you scroll down, for those like me who find transcripts more accessible)
@chrisstiles - I wasn't trying to flatten the UK and USA situations into a single thread, but the two situations are confused. When I hear our (British) politicians and commentators discussing race, critical race theory is not uncommonly mentioned.
I think that much of the dialogue in the UK that explicitly mentions CRT is driven by the right, specifically alt-right ginger groups (like Turning Point UK) and people connected to them who are trying to import a US style culture war into the UK.
Which isn't to say that CRT has no relevance in a UK context, but the application of it's principles would have to thought through in order to apply it properly to a UK context.
Thanks for the links and Louise's top about transcripts. I learnt a lot and will help me give a basic explanation CRT to others if it becomes a right wing scare tactic in Australia.
This came up earlier, and because this is the most recent discussion, I'm posting it here - (link to Guardian coverage) entitled English schools must not teach ‘white privilege’ as fact, government warns, as part of some new guidance due out some time soon. The article starts:
English schools should not teach “contested theories and opinions … such as white privilege” as fact, the government has said prior to the publication of new guidance outlining how teaching certain political issues could break the law.
Schools should avoid promoting “partisan political views” and must instead teach racial and social justice topics in a “balanced and factual manner”, according to the government’s official response to a report on the educational disadvantages faced by white working-class pupils published by the education committee in June.
There is a UK problem of white working class kids being left behind in many areas, but the report was hugely criticised for cherry picking data at the time, and there are lots of criticism about ignoring the issues of racism in future Government advice.
As consumers of American media have learned oh-so-painfully, "balanced" and "factual" often run against each other. They are very different metrics. It's really dangerous to mash those two together without acknowledging the problem.
Curiosity Killed:.
Schools should avoid promoting “partisan political views” and must instead teach racial and social justice topics in a “balanced and factual manner”, according to the government’s official response to a report on the educational disadvantages faced by white working-class pupils
Of course, study of the facts regarding racial (in) justice means that a balanced conclusion is that Britain (along with many others) "is weighed in the balance and found wanting". It is also the case that white working-class pupils, along with other working-class pupils, suffer from structural inequality. The notion that the former cannot be discussed because of the latter is at best bizarre, but not at all difficult to explain.
North Dakota recently passed a law banning the teaching of "critical race theory" in public K-12 classrooms. It also defined "critical race theory" pretty . . . broadly:
For purposes of this section, "critical race theory" means the theory that racism is not merely the product of learned individual bias or prejudice, but that racism is systemically embedded in American society and the American legal system to facilitate racial inequality.
This seems like it would make it almost impossible to teach most of American history with any kind of accuracy. For example:
Another parent independently submitted written testimony and presented the following "evidence" of CRT:
We recently completed a Boy Scout Trip to the Black Hills. During the course of our hike when we climbed Black Elk Peak, my son was explaining to other scouts what he learned at school. We white people had apparently stolen the Black Hills from the native tribes… This kind of polarizing teaching is unnecessary and untrue and is at the core of CRT.
The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 between the United States, the Sioux, and the Arapaho designated the Black Hills as "'unceded Indian Territory' for the exclusive use of native peoples." In the 1980 case of United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, the Supreme Court ruled "that the U.S. had illegally appropriated the Black Hills and awarded more than $100 million in reparations." The Sioux rejected the financial award, arguing that the land was never for sale.
This parent apparently believes teaching this history is an example of CRT and should be prohibited. Under the new law, it may not be possible for North Dakota teachers to discuss the case or the illegal seizure of native lands by the United States government.
Of course the Black Hills are in South Dakota, so I'm sure that kind of topic would never need to come up in classrooms in North Dakota, right?
It would not surprise me to find that, at the time of the Fort Laramie treaty, Dakota had not yet been subdivided into two separate states. I am sure that is a story unto itself.
As I understand it, several lawsuits against such laws as what was passed in North Dakota are now winding their way through state and federal courts as violations against the right of free speech which is protected in the United States Constitution and state constitutions.
It would not surprise me to find that, at the time of the Fort Laramie treaty, Dakota had not yet been subdivided into two separate states. I am sure that is a story unto itself.
Using a framework and terminology bound up in racist notions historically applied to white people in the UK to discuss CRT is not appropriate. Structural racism in the UK and divide-and-rule type politics in the UK would need its own thread, thanks - Louise, Epiphanies Host
I see the truth of CRT. In the UK. What... paralyses me is that injustice is so institutionalized in the UK, for at least a thousand years, since the 0.1% Norman invasion, that the greatest victims of that in the UK are the Anglo-Saxon and minority Celtic masses. That's down to 80% of the population now, 4/5ths. A third - the lowest ever - of those are semi and unskilled or worse off by formal qualification, and yes I know that care home workers are enormously skilled, more than their managers. The whole system is so wrong that addressing the wrongs done to the now 15% BAME and their ancestral cultures by the English ruling class exposes the paralysing, and worse, flaws of democracy. The ruling class agitate the white working and lower middle class through the Tory press and divide them from the BAME including refugees. They sit on stolen land and sell them a nation. I fear that no more progress whatsoever can be made because of the parasite ruling class. Because it is democratically impossible to properly tax them. Instead the lie is that anything that is done will cost YOU, in identity, shame and money.
Apparently Whoopi Goldberg just reached peak idiot on The View today, claiming that the Holocaust wasn't about race, because it was white people doing it to other white people.
There's so many different kinds of stupid in that statement that I don't really know where to start.
She kept on doubling down about it being about "man's inhumanity to man" but not racism, because she appears completely locked on race just being black vs white.
I think everyone knows what the Nazi's views on the Aryan "master race" on the "Jewish race" and on "other races" were.
But no, it's apparently just about how people treat other people, without any acknowledgement that the other people might all have something in common.
I'm really not sure what her point was, or what she thought she was achieving with this.
The View isn't terribly highbrow, but it's a fairly popular daytime talk show. The context was some Tennessee school board banning the graphic novel "Maus" on grounds that look decidedly sketchy.
CRT is quite specific about its definition of "racism" as being white people vs other people, and I was wondering about whether this was what was driving Whoopi Goldberg: if you lock in to this narrow definition of race that might be appropriate in one context, and then change your context without changing your definition of "race" then strange things happen, and perhaps this was one of those things.
The celebrity in question has a well-documented history of making controversial and unsupported public statements and this has really nothing to do with CRT.
CRT is quite specific about its definition of "racism" as being white people vs other people, and I was wondering about whether this was what was driving Whoopi Goldberg: if you lock in to this narrow definition of race that might be appropriate in one context, and then change your context without changing your definition of "race" then strange things happen, and perhaps this was one of those things.
It’s an approach to analysing the American legal system, not a catch all term for describing thinking racism exists or a tool for doing historical analysis in Europe. Nor is Whooping Goldberg, whatever rubbish she happens to be spouting, a critical race theorist.
If you see her remark in context, she was talking about why the book Maus should *not* be banned in American schools - rather than minimising the Holocaust, just doing so with a duff analysis. (I note she said exactly the same thing about the Nazis murdering the Roma, in the same sentence, and nobody seems to have given a damn about that as usual.)
That may have been the origin of the term but in vernacular use, particularly by those who claim it is some kind of threat, critical race theory now means "anything that makes white people uncomfortable".
Comments
I don't think it's necessarily helpful to flatten the discussions in the US and UK into a single thread.
One of the frustrating things about right-wing Newspeak on subjects like this is their offense when taken literally and their equal offense when they're not taken literally. For example, it seems like a very bad idea to try to "balance" between justice and injustice, as the cited report suggests. Most folks would prefer state actors to be pro-justice and anti-injustice. Taking their plain meaning about balancing between justice and injustice is considered offensive On the other hand suggesting that maybe they have some motive beyond the plain meaning of their utterances also angers them.
I think a similar thing is going on with the hijacking of the term "critical race theory". Those deploying it get angry when you point out that what they're objecting to isn't really critical race theory and they get angry if you try to drill down to figure out what the root of their actual objection is.
What I was hoping to point out was that:
1) there is a discussion going on on this side of the Atlantic, but the issues are not straightforward;
2) adding some more recent evidence following comments about the UK on page 1.
https://openargs.com/oa501-critical-legal-studies-and-critical-race-theory/
https://openargs.com/critical-race-theory-part-2/
If you have the time - or, like me, the commute - I think it’s really helpful. Everything I know about CRT, I leaned here.
AFZ
I think that much of the dialogue in the UK that explicitly mentions CRT is driven by the right, specifically alt-right ginger groups (like Turning Point UK) and people connected to them who are trying to import a US style culture war into the UK.
Which isn't to say that CRT has no relevance in a UK context, but the application of it's principles would have to thought through in order to apply it properly to a UK context.
Thanks for the links and Louise's top about transcripts. I learnt a lot and will help me give a basic explanation CRT to others if it becomes a right wing scare tactic in Australia.
As consumers of American media have learned oh-so-painfully, "balanced" and "factual" often run against each other. They are very different metrics. It's really dangerous to mash those two together without acknowledging the problem.
Of course, study of the facts regarding racial (in) justice means that a balanced conclusion is that Britain (along with many others) "is weighed in the balance and found wanting". It is also the case that white working-class pupils, along with other working-class pupils, suffer from structural inequality. The notion that the former cannot be discussed because of the latter is at best bizarre, but not at all difficult to explain.
This seems like it would make it almost impossible to teach most of American history with any kind of accuracy. For example:
Of course the Black Hills are in South Dakota, so I'm sure that kind of topic would never need to come up in classrooms in North Dakota, right?
As I understand it, several lawsuits against such laws as what was passed in North Dakota are now winding their way through state and federal courts as violations against the right of free speech which is protected in the United States Constitution and state constitutions.
They weren't separated until they became states in 1889. Learn about the separation here: https://time.com/4377423/dakota-north-south-history-two/
I see the truth of CRT. In the UK. What... paralyses me is that injustice is so institutionalized in the UK, for at least a thousand years, since the 0.1% Norman invasion, that the greatest victims of that in the UK are the Anglo-Saxon and minority Celtic masses. That's down to 80% of the population now, 4/5ths. A third - the lowest ever - of those are semi and unskilled or worse off by formal qualification, and yes I know that care home workers are enormously skilled, more than their managers. The whole system is so wrong that addressing the wrongs done to the now 15% BAME and their ancestral cultures by the English ruling class exposes the paralysing, and worse, flaws of democracy. The ruling class agitate the white working and lower middle class through the Tory press and divide them from the BAME including refugees. They sit on stolen land and sell them a nation. I fear that no more progress whatsoever can be made because of the parasite ruling class. Because it is democratically impossible to properly tax them. Instead the lie is that anything that is done will cost YOU, in identity, shame and money.
With regard to the previous post, please don't follow up its hidden content on this thread.
Thanks
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Hosting off
Reopened post Christmas - Happy New Year!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Hosting off
There's so many different kinds of stupid in that statement that I don't really know where to start.
I think everyone knows what the Nazi's views on the Aryan "master race" on the "Jewish race" and on "other races" were.
But no, it's apparently just about how people treat other people, without any acknowledgement that the other people might all have something in common.
I'm really not sure what her point was, or what she thought she was achieving with this.
The View isn't terribly highbrow, but it's a fairly popular daytime talk show. The context was some Tennessee school board banning the graphic novel "Maus" on grounds that look decidedly sketchy.
It’s an approach to analysing the American legal system, not a catch all term for describing thinking racism exists or a tool for doing historical analysis in Europe. Nor is Whooping Goldberg, whatever rubbish she happens to be spouting, a critical race theorist.
If you see her remark in context, she was talking about why the book Maus should *not* be banned in American schools - rather than minimising the Holocaust, just doing so with a duff analysis. (I note she said exactly the same thing about the Nazis murdering the Roma, in the same sentence, and nobody seems to have given a damn about that as usual.)
That may have been the origin of the term but in vernacular use, particularly by those who claim it is some kind of threat, critical race theory now means "anything that makes white people uncomfortable".