What are your thoughts re Hegelian Dialectic & CRT

[Neto]

Lots of people confuse Oklahoma Territory with Indian Territory, thinking that these are just two names for the whole of what is now the state of Oklahoma. The Land runs you've all heard about, that didn't happen in Indian Territory. It was actually the leaders of the "Five Civilized Tribes" who went to Washington D. C. and requested to join the USA as a state. All of the land granted to the tribes that had been (forcibly) resettled in Indian Territory was divided into family owned plots. (Except perhaps Osage County, which was always called Osage Nation, as far back as I can remember. (We lived just 12 miles from the county line, and drove through there every time we went to visit my paternal grandparents in western Oklahoma.) My maternal grandfather purchased the land where he farmed (and where I grew up) from a Cherokee man. The little town where I went to school, the entire area where the town was built was donated by a Cherokee woman (actually the grandmother of one of fellow students). It was an Indian town. Whites were a minority. Some of the teachers in the HS were Indians. Yes, it has changed in that area, as that little town is now a huge city, but there are still lots of native people there, now more of a mixture of different tribal peoples than back when I was attending school there.
I'm not saying that serious atrocities were not committed against native peoples. One thing I WILL say however is that exaggerating the story line is self-defeating.

Yes, Oklahoma has its own complicated history and was the dumping ground for all the tribes who's land was stolen from everywhere else in the US. The Nez Perce here in the Pacific Northwest were also "removed" from their lands in Oregon and Idaho and sent to a tiny reservation in Oklahoma until they were eventually allowed to return and sent to another tribal reservation in Northern Washington. Sure you can write about how the Cherokee were "removed" from their homeland in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and North Carolina. Lands that were guaranteed to them by treaties first signed with the British and then later the Americans. But "removal" is just a euphemism for "stolen". And admitting that isn't some example of critical race theory being taught in schools. That notion is ridiculous.

Now I actually think the recent trend of doing "acknowledgements" of stolen Indian land at Universities before seminars and such is annoying performative white nonsense. Just like the equally annoying trend of using the word Latinx. Which is another white liberal affection that actual Spanish speakers think is silly and ridiculous. But that sort of thing tends to sort itself out naturally. And eventually some new fad will come along. It isn't all some big conspiracy theory worth getting whipped into a lather about.

I remember back in the early 1970s when my 3rd grade teacher Mrs. Ostrander wrote on the blackboard "Ms. Ostrander" for the first time. And I knew right then and there that CRT was creeping into my elementary school and it was "go time" before I got turned into a socialist.

I don't know if your "you" was intended to refer to any unknown second person singular or plural, or if you were addressing that to me personally, but I actually used the phrase "(forcibly) resettled". Maybe that is not an adequately descriptive term for what it was, but my own people experienced the same, and much worse (like being take out & shot). And the same has been done in my lifetime to Indians in Brazil. (Thinking specifically of the Kreen-Akore, whose forced resettlement came about in the latter mid 70's, which was instrumental in focusing my attention on Brazil as the place I wanted to go.)

[Neto]

I think there is an inherent predisposition in humanity to prefer those who remind ourselves of ourselves. I think that this is expressed in group identities, tribalism, and classroom cliques...in the fallen state of mankind.

Is this true of minority groups as well?

I know less about this in respect to people groups who have a constant interdependent relationship with the majority group, but it is certainly true of isolated tribal groups with intermittent contact with outsiders.

[GaryK]

I think there is an inherent predisposition in humanity to prefer those who remind ourselves of ourselves. I think that this is expressed in group identities, tribalism, and classroom cliques...in the fallen state of mankind.

Is this true of minority groups as well?

I know less about this in respect to people groups who have a constant interdependent relationship with the majority group, but it is certainly true of isolated tribal groups with intermittent contact with outsiders.

This was true in Liberia as well.

[joshuabgood]

I think there is an inherent predisposition in humanity to prefer those who remind ourselves of ourselves. I think that this is expressed in group identities, tribalism, and classroom cliques...in the fallen state of mankind.

Is this true of minority groups as well?

Yes.

[Ken]

If the 1500 people asked this straight forward question were all just led like sheep to a desired result, which is what you seem to be implying, then you must not have much faith in their ability to think and answer for themselves. Is that the kind of people public schools like the ones you have taught in are producing?

I am simply pointing out that push-polling does not generate statistically reliable results. How bad these results are no one knows. That is only the first problem with this survey. The second and larger problem is that they didn't actually measure what they were claiming to measure. They polled six very generic and common terms or concepts that are widespread across society and then tried to link them to a specific narrow academic theory. That is basically a non sequitur fallacy. Let's look at each one individually

Statement 1: America is a systemically racist country. This is objectively true. Any HS student studying American history will encounter hundreds of examples. As will anyone studying current events. Or anyone paying attention to the lived experiences of non-white people in this country as reflected by literature. You cannot find a moment in history for which this statement was not true. So to claim it as evidence of CRT is absurd.

Statement 2: In America White people have White Privilege. This is a newer concept and the flip side of #1. It is also a very vague and general statement that is also objectively true. If discrimination disadvantages one group then the other group is by definition privileged. It is just another way of saying that racial discrimination exists. In the past, the burden of fighting racism was largely placed on the victims of racism. The Civil Rights moment, MLK, etc. This is simply turning the problem around and refocusing it where it correctly belongs.

Statement 3: In America white people have unconscious biases that negatively affect nonwhite people. There is a lot of social science research demonstrating this to be true. Much of it long preceding this CRT panic. For example, Malcolm Gladwell wrote about this 16 years ago in his best selling book "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking which was based on much older research. Is Malcolm Gladwell trying to indoctrinate the nation on CRT?

Another widely publicized example is the NFL which for decades has resisted hiring Black coaches and Black quarterbacks. Just last month there was lots of coverage about how groundbreaking it was to have the first Superbowl in history with two Black quarterbacks. My science classes were talking about this with no prompting from me. There was also lots of coverage about how the NFL (and NCAA) are still biased against hiring Black coaches. What is the ratio of Black coaches to Black players in either the NFL or NCAA? That answer is easy to find and it is not pretty. What is YOUR explanation for why marginal White coaches are constantly recycled through the NFL and NCAA and Black coaches are rarely given a first chance much less a second chance? I'd be interested to hear it.

Statement 4: America is Built on Stolen Land: Another statement that is blindly obvious to any student who has ever taking an American history class as we discussed above. In fact, I would suggest that this subject is part of the history curriculum standards of every state in the country. Is it CRT when every HS history textbook used in every public school in the country covers a subject? That notion is absurd.

Statement 5: America is a Patriarchal Society: Um, yes. Again, anyone who has cracked open a US history textbook knows this. Maybe you can tell us what the 19th Amendment was about and why is was fought for so long? How many American presidents have been women? Or, if you want to go to the present day, why are the Southern Baptists currently busy expelling churches from their organization? In any event, this is mostly a conservative notion. It is conservative religious schools that teach complementarianism not public schools. It is conservatives who are doing their best to make this statement true, not liberals or CRT.

Statement 6: Gender is an identity choice, regardless of the biological sex you were born with. This is pretty much the widespread public consensus of anyone under say 35. Anyone interviewing young people ages 18-20 will find this to be the consensus opinion as it is in wider society. It also happens to be the law. Schools are required by law to treat LGBT children equally and with respect. And are required to make sure that all children are treated equally and with respect regardless of their religion, race, ethnicity, appearance, disability, and yes, sexual orientation. And parents of LGBT children have the right to expect that public schools will do that. Again, this also has nothing to do with CRT.

Personally I have nothing against CRT. It is a fairly esoteric academic theory like many others that has some usefulness in some instances and less so in others. These things tend to sort themselves out naturally. The stuff that is over-reaching and ridiculous eventually fades away and is forgotten and there is always some new sociological or educational fad on the horizon. But the notion that students have been exposed to those 6 broad and objectively true statements in school means they are being indoctrinated in CRT is just laughable.

[GaryK]

If the 1500 people asked this straight forward question were all just led like sheep to a desired result, which is what you seem to be implying, then you must not have much faith in their ability to think and answer for themselves. Is that the kind of people public schools like the ones you have taught in are producing?

I am simply pointing out that push-polling does not generate statistically reliable results. How bad these results are no one knows. That is only the first problem with this survey. The second and larger problem is that they didn't actually measure what they were claiming to measure. They polled six very generic and common terms or concepts that are widespread across society and then tried to link them to a specific narrow academic theory. That is basically a non sequitur fallacy. Let's look at each one individually

Statement 1: America is a systemically racist country. This is objectively true. Any HS student studying American history will encounter hundreds of examples. As will anyone studying current events. Or anyone paying attention to the lived experiences of non-white people in this country as reflected by literature. You cannot find a moment in history for which this statement was not true. So to claim it as evidence of CRT is absurd.

Statement 2: In America White people have White Privilege. This is a newer concept and the flip side of #1. It is also a very vague and general statement that is also objectively true. If discrimination disadvantages one group then the other group is by definition privileged. It is just another way of saying that racial discrimination exists. In the past, the burden of fighting racism was largely placed on the victims of racism. The Civil Rights moment, MLK, etc. This is simply turning the problem around and refocusing it where it correctly belongs.

Statement 3: In America white people have unconscious biases that negatively affect nonwhite people. There is a lot of social science research demonstrating this to be true. Much of it long preceding this CRT panic. For example, Malcolm Gladwell wrote about this 16 years ago in his best selling book "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking which was based on much older research. Is Malcolm Gladwell trying to indoctrinate the nation on CRT?

Another widely publicized example is the NFL which for decades has resisted hiring Black coaches and Black quarterbacks. Just last month there was lots of coverage about how groundbreaking it was to have the first Superbowl in history with two Black quarterbacks. My science classes were talking about this with no prompting from me. There was also lots of coverage about how the NFL (and NCAA) are still biased against hiring Black coaches. What is the ratio of Black coaches to Black players in either the NFL or NCAA? That answer is easy to find and it is not pretty. What is YOUR explanation for why marginal White coaches are constantly recycled through the NFL and NCAA and Black coaches are rarely given a first chance much less a second chance? I'd be interested to hear it.

Statement 4: America is Built on Stolen Land: Another statement that is blindly obvious to any student who has ever taking an American history class as we discussed above. In fact, I would suggest that this subject is part of the history curriculum standards of every state in the country. Is it CRT when every HS history textbook used in every public school in the country covers a subject? That notion is absurd.

Statement 5: America is a Patriarchal Society: Um, yes. Again, anyone who has cracked open a US history textbook knows this. Maybe you can tell us what the 19th Amendment was about and why is was fought for so long? How many American presidents have been women? Or, if you want to go to the present day, why are the Southern Baptists currently busy expelling churches from their organization? In any event, this is mostly a conservative notion. It is conservative religious schools that teach complementarianism not public schools. It is conservatives who are doing their best to make this statement true, not liberals or CRT.

Statement 6: Gender is an identity choice, regardless of the biological sex you were born with. This is pretty much the widespread public consensus of anyone under say 35. Anyone interviewing young people ages 18-20 will find this to be the consensus opinion as it is in wider society. It also happens to be the law. Schools are required by law to treat LGBT children equally and with respect. And are required to make sure that all children are treated equally and with respect regardless of their religion, race, ethnicity, appearance, disability, and yes, sexual orientation. And parents of LGBT children have the right to expect that public schools will do that. Again, this also has nothing to do with CRT.

Personally I have nothing against CRT. It is a fairly esoteric academic theory like many others that has some usefulness in some instances and less so in others. These things tend to sort themselves out naturally. The stuff that is over-reaching and ridiculous eventually fades away and is forgotten and there is always some new sociological or educational fad on the horizon. But the notion that students have been exposed to those 6 broad and objectively true statements in school means they are being indoctrinated in CRT is just laughable.

Again, the question was...

“Thinking about the school you attended, were you ever taught any of the following concepts in class or did you hear them from adults in the school you attended?”

You seem to be missing this important question.

[Ken]

Again, the question was...

“Thinking about the school you attended, were you ever taught any of the following concepts in class or did you hear them from adults in the school you attended?”

You seem to be missing this important question.

Again, I'm making two points.

The first point is that this sort of push-polling where you give people the answer within the question itself does not generate statistically valid results. I'm sure the authors know that which is why they haven't tried to actually publish this material in any sort of peer reviewed setting even though they are ostensibly academics themselves. That is an immediate red flag right there.

The second point which I covered above is that research itself is nonsense because they are just measuring six incredibly broad and vague statements that are not only objectively true but also widespread in society. None of which have any direct causal linkage to teaching CRT.

[Josh]

“ Statement 1: America is a systemically racist country. This is objectively true. Any HS student studying American history will encounter hundreds of examples.”

The question was “is”, not “was”. History is about the past, not the present.

[GaryK]

Again, the question was...

You seem to be missing this important question.

Again, I'm making two points.

The first point is that this sort of push-polling where you give people the answer within the question itself does not generate statistically valid results. I'm sure the authors know that which is why they haven't tried to actually publish this material in any sort of peer reviewed setting even though they are ostensibly academics themselves. That is an immediate red flag right there.

The second point which I covered above is that research itself is nonsense because they are just measuring six incredibly broad and vague statements that are not only objectively true but also widespread in society. None of which have any direct causal linkage to teaching CRT.

I'm well aware of these two points you keep restating but the purpose of the study was to determine how widespread this type of teaching is within schools today.

The answer is not given within the question being asked as you imply. The very specific question is whether they were ever taught these concepts in class or heard them from adults in the school you attended, not whether they had heard these ideas within the larger society.

I really don't understand what the problem is with this question.

[Ken]

I'm well aware of these two points you keep restating but the purpose of the study was to determine how widespread this type of teaching is within schools today.

The point is that they didn't measure anything to do with CRT. They measured six vague statements that that are fundamental principles taught in American history or, in the case of the last one, carry the force of law.

The answer is not given within the question being asked as you imply. The very specific question is whether they were ever taught these concepts in class or heard them from adults in the school you attended, not whether they had heard these ideas within the larger society.

I really don't understand what the problem is with this question.

Because social scientists know that leading questions do not produce reliable results. We could conduct a survey of 1000 people and ask them: Did you hear that GaryK was [insert whatever vile made-up rumor you want] and a certain portion of the respondents will answer yes, I heard that. Even though we know that the correct percentage is zero because none of them could possibly have heard it. And if 20% say "yes, I heard that about GaryK are they deliberately lying? Or are they just naturally suggestable and answered yes because the question itself put the idea in their heads and it sounded like something they probably did hear or should have heard.

if you wanted to generate more reliable results you would have to ask open-ended questions with follow-up clarifications. For example:

Question: Did you cover the subject of race or racism in school?
Question: In what context? History class? Martin Luther King day? Informal class discussions? English Literature class?
Question: What are some of the themes that you covered?
Question: What would you say is the take-home message you got from all of that?

And then from all of those varied answers we can decide whether, for example, if fact that students learned about racism through studying slavery and Jim Crow segregation. Or if they learned about it by seeing MLK's "I have a dream speech" on MLK day. Or if they learned about it by reading "To KIll a Mockingbird" or "Huckleberry Finn" in literature class. If any of those things mean that they are being indoctrinated by CRT. Or if they are just becoming educated about the history of their country and the world in which they live.



and so forth.