Russ Douthat on Critical Race Theory

[Josh]

61 years ago today, four Federal marshals had to escort 6-year-old Ruby Bridges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Bridges) to her first day of first grade at a previously all-white elementary school in New Orleans. This happened within the living memory of 50 million Americans. The reasons why white racists were so violently opposed to this child attending a previously all-white public school were exactly the same as all the reasons Josh listed above.

And today we have state legislatures and school districts seeking to ban the teaching of this very history because it is "divisive" or because they are labeling any race-related history as CRT. That is the actual reality of what is happening today. And it is shameful.

Except the reasons I listed above have nothing to do with race.

Is there a reason you're so obsessed with race?

[Ken]

61 years ago today, four Federal marshals had to escort 6-year-old Ruby Bridges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Bridges) to her first day of first grade at a previously all-white elementary school in New Orleans. This happened within the living memory of 50 million Americans. The reasons why white racists were so violently opposed to this child attending a previously all-white public school were exactly the same as all the reasons Josh listed above.

And today we have state legislatures and school districts seeking to ban the teaching of this very history because it is "divisive" or because they are labeling any race-related history as CRT. That is the actual reality of what is happening today. And it is shameful.

Except the reasons I listed above have nothing to do with race.

Is there a reason you're so obsessed with race?

This is a thread about race and how we understand our shared history. I'm not sure why you are even here if you don't want to talk about race.

I'm simply pointing out that the arguments used to support every form of racism and racial segregation in this country have always been class-based or about economics and rarely actually about race. Feel free to roll back the clock and examine why people opposed school desegregation in the 1960s. They said all the exact same things you are saying. As a Christian that should make you uncomfortable.

[Josh]

This is a thread about race and how we understand our shared history. I'm not sure why you are even here if you don't want to talk about race.

I'm simply pointing out that the arguments used to support every form of racism and racial segregation in this country have always been class-based or about economics and rarely actually about race. Feel free to roll back the clock and examine why people opposed school desegregation in the 1960s. They said all the exact same things you are saying. As a Christian that should make you uncomfortable.

No, I pointed out why some people don't want to go to school with drug dealers and with people whose families don't value education. That seems pretty reasonable to me. You seem to be arguing that it's "racist" to feel that way.

Schools got desegregated a long time ago. People of any race can basically move wherever they want, except for limitations based on wealth / class.

I am questioning why you don't think people should have the basic freedom to decide they don't want to associate with families whose lives consist of crime, drug dealing, and domestic violence. I think that's a pretty reasonable thing for some people to choose.

[nett]

61 years ago today, four Federal marshals had to escort 6-year-old Ruby Bridges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Bridges) to her first day of first grade at a previously all-white elementary school in New Orleans. This happened within the living memory of 50 million Americans. The reasons why white racists were so violently opposed to this child attending a previously all-white public school were exactly the same as all the reasons Josh listed above.

And today we have state legislatures and school districts seeking to ban the teaching of this very history because it is "divisive" or because they are labeling any race-related history as CRT. That is the actual reality of what is happening today. And it is shameful.

Except the reasons I listed above have nothing to do with race.

Is there a reason you're so obsessed with race?

This is a thread about race and how we understand our shared history. I'm not sure why you are even here if you don't want to talk about race.

I'm simply pointing out that the arguments used to support every form of racism and racial segregation in this country have always been class-based or about economics and rarely actually about race. Feel free to roll back the clock and examine why people opposed school desegregation in the 1960s. They said all the exact same things you are saying. As a Christian that should make you uncomfortable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

[Bootstrap]

I think American history includes all Americans, and should be told from multiple points of view.

Oh, and I must think otherwise because I'm white?

I don't know what you think. Because you aren't telling me. Do you agree with that statement or not? Should we include writings of slaves and people who did not own property when we teach history? Should we discuss what everyday life looked like for various people?

I don't think that's some radical CRT statement.

You see, your attitude is exactly why I don't trust CRT.

CRT? What part of that sentence do you think of as CRT and why? If you look at the OP and most of my posts in this thread, I am not saying that CRT should be the main way we teach history, but I do think we should look at many accounts of history to see what is true, and I also think we need to discuss history from the perspective of various groups of Americans.

What do I think how history should be taught in public schools? I suppose I would need to see these assumptions mulled over and discussed by other scholars who don't share CRT assumptions, who are pro Western and Christian tradition, and see what they have to say about it. But they would probably be shouted down as horrible bigots and racists and so forth and nothing would come of it.

I wouldn't limit this to public schools. What should we teach in Christian schools?

To me, it sounds like you are worried about criticism of things that white American Christians and political leaders did in the past. But if that scares you, the Bible should terrify you. It is rather unsparing in its criticism of some of the leaders of Israel, who made serious mistakes. And so did some of the leaders of the early Church. People are not 100% good or 100% bad, stories are complicated. That doesn't make the Bible anti-Christian or anti-Jewish.

This is true in American history too.

[Bootstrap]

Reminder: This is not a thread for "whatever I want to say about CRT".

There are other threads for that.

This thread is about how we should teach and understand American history. In response to what Russ Douthat wrote and said on the topic. How do we teach American history in a way that includes the experiences of black Americans before and after slavery? And includes the perspectives of other non-elite Americans through history?

Request: I would like to make this a structured discussion, using the following rules:

• This is a no-debate, no-fight thread.
• Please do not respond before reading at least one of the articles in the list below. In your response, quote or reference something that Douthat actually said and respond to it.
• Talk about what you think, not about what you think someone else might think.

I heard a podcast where liberal Ezra Klein interviews conservative Russ Douthat. Transcript and audio are available at the above link.

• What Progressives Want, and What Conservatives Are Fighting
• The Excesses of Antiracist Education
• Why a Patriotic Education Can Be Valuable

I don't agree with everything, but I thought there was a lot of wisdom in what he wrote. And he clearly has taken the time to read and understand what he is talking about, I think the people he disagrees with would have to admit that he understood what they are saying and is doing his best to represent them accurately and respectfully.

I liked this summary:

The backlash to 1619 and similar efforts has convinced progressives that the right is desperately clinging to myths of American innocence. But conservatives often see themselves as objecting to the most radical parts of progressive revisionism, not the entire project. As the historian Matthew Karp notes in a perceptive essay for Harper’s, compared with just a generation ago the position of many conservatives has shifted, becoming explicitly anti-Lost Cause, anti-Confederate flag — and, in the recent congressional voting, mostly pro-Juneteenth as well. In its contest with the new progressivism, the right is abandoning Lee and rallying to Lincoln — for its own nationalist political purposes, Karp is quick to stress, but in a way that accepts a different center for historical debate than existed even when I attended high school.

Similarly, Benjamin Wallace-Wells of The New Yorker, reporting on the Texan battle over race and education, notes how quick the Republican spokesman in the legislative debates was to make concessions to the history of racism and discrimination, the failure of the ideals of 1776 to initially extend beyond “white property-owning males.”

This means that you could imagine, out of this controversy, potential forms of synthesis — in which the progressive desire for a deeper reckoning with slavery and segregation gets embedded in a basically patriotic narrative of what the founding established, what Lincoln achieved, what America meant to people of many races, even with our sins.

[Josh]

A good start would be to ask how history should be taught in general (not just American history); perhaps a global perspective is in order.

[Falco Underhill]

I think American history includes all Americans, and should be told from multiple points of view.

Oh, and I must think otherwise because I'm white?

I don't know what you think. Because you aren't telling me. Do you agree with that statement or not? Should we include writings of slaves and people who did not own property when we teach history? Should we discuss what everyday life looked like for various people?

I don't think that's some radical CRT statement.

You see, your attitude is exactly why I don't trust CRT.

CRT? What part of that sentence do you think of as CRT and why? If you look at the OP and most of my posts in this thread, I am not saying that CRT should be the main way we teach history, but I do think we should look at many accounts of history to see what is true, and I also think we need to discuss history from the perspective of various groups of Americans.

What do I think how history should be taught in public schools? I suppose I would need to see these assumptions mulled over and discussed by other scholars who don't share CRT assumptions, who are pro Western and Christian tradition, and see what they have to say about it. But they would probably be shouted down as horrible bigots and racists and so forth and nothing would come of it.

I wouldn't limit this to public schools. What should we teach in Christian schools?

To me, it sounds like you are worried about criticism of things that white American Christians and political leaders did in the past. But if that scares you, the Bible should terrify you. It is rather unsparing in its criticism of some of the leaders of Israel, who made serious mistakes. And so did some of the leaders of the early Church. People are not 100% good or 100% bad, stories are complicated. That doesn't make the Bible anti-Christian or anti-Jewish.

This is true in American history too.

Boot, you started out asking me if I held outrageous positions, putting me on the defensive. And now your suggesting I'm afraid of having America's sins exposed. (Not true).

I refuse to engage you because I do not need to be lectured by you and you're a constant troll.

Stick to a topic please and stop guessing at what my position is when you don't know it.

[Falco Underhill]

Oh, and I must think otherwise because I'm white?

I don't know what you think. Because you aren't telling me. Do you agree with that statement or not? Should we include writings of slaves and people who did not own property when we teach history? Should we discuss what everyday life looked like for various people?

I don't think that's some radical CRT statement.

You see, your attitude is exactly why I don't trust CRT.

CRT? What part of that sentence do you think of as CRT and why? If you look at the OP and most of my posts in this thread, I am not saying that CRT should be the main way we teach history, but I do think we should look at many accounts of history to see what is true, and I also think we need to discuss history from the perspective of various groups of Americans.

What do I think how history should be taught in public schools? I suppose I would need to see these assumptions mulled over and discussed by other scholars who don't share CRT assumptions, who are pro Western and Christian tradition, and see what they have to say about it. But they would probably be shouted down as horrible bigots and racists and so forth and nothing would come of it.

I wouldn't limit this to public schools. What should we teach in Christian schools?

To me, it sounds like you are worried about criticism of things that white American Christians and political leaders did in the past. But if that scares you, the Bible should terrify you. It is rather unsparing in its criticism of some of the leaders of Israel, who made serious mistakes. And so did some of the leaders of the early Church. People are not 100% good or 100% bad, stories are complicated. That doesn't make the Bible anti-Christian or anti-Jewish.

This is true in American history too.

Boot, you started out asking me if I held outrageous positions, putting me on the defensive. And now your suggesting I'm afraid of having America's sins exposed. (Not true).

I refuse to engage you because I do not need to be lectured by you and you're a constant troll.

Stick to a topic please and stop guessing at what my position is when you don't know it.

But I still love you though, Boot!

[Szdfan]

This morning, I taught the Langston Hughes's poem, "I, Too" for an exercise on voice.

I, too, sing America.

I am the darker brother.
They send me to eat in the kitchen
When company comes,
But I laugh,
And eat well,
And grow strong.

Tomorrow,
I’ll be at the table
When company comes.
Nobody’ll dare
Say to me,
“Eat in the kitchen,”
Then.

Besides,
They’ll see how beautiful I am
And be ashamed—

I, too, am America.

I think that this poem encapulates what Boot is driving at. Part of the fight over this is the question over which story of America gets told and taught in the schools. In the past, "America" was understood as being one thing -- a narrative about liberty and freedom. The historical truth is a lot more complicated and difficult -- liberty and freedom in America has always been incomplete.

I think what Hughes is saying in a rather gentle way is that his story and experience is also part of America. He also "sings America" and he also "is America." He also belongs even though he has been sent to eat in the kitchen.

The central question of the CRT debate is how full of a picture of American history -- whose stories do we also include? It's not always pretty or comfortable, but its honest.