We don't need to be afraid of CRT

[Bootstrap]

I agree that this is a problem. I would reserve words like "oppresssors" for the kinds of things we traditionally associate with that term. But I am willing to listen to people who don't speak the way I do, and I think I hear some of this coming from the right as well, where some commentators often portray those who disagree with them as trying to steal our freedom, as Marxist revolutionaries, etc. I find the extremist and polarizing language on both sides problematic. And the campaign against CRT is hardly innocent of this.

Is extremist and polarizing just to state the facts?

No, but we rarely get around to that.

Critical Race Theory is ultimately derived from Marx's Critical Theory via Gramsci.

Do you deny this? (Yes or no please.)

You are not asking whether they are Marxists or whether they want a Marxist revolution. The answer to both of those questions is "no" for most CRT writers, but it's a very broad movement, and the answer is "yes" for some. You are asking whether they are influenced by Marx's analysis of the problems poor people faced in capitalist systems in the 1800s, indirectly, via Gramsci. Yes, that is true, Gramsci was one of the influences on Critical Race Theory. But the extremist, polarizing tactic is to use guilt-by-association games to portray CRT as Marxist revolutionaries who want to take away our freedoms. That's simply not true of the vast majority of them. And people often seem to be pushing that narrative instead of responding directly to what people like Crenshaw or Bell are actually saying.

We see this in this thread. Josh is clearly not a Marxist, he is more sympathetic to some parts of CRT than I am, but he is a biblical Christian. Nevertheless, very little of this thread takes the time to quote things he is saying and respond to it thoughtfully.

[temporal1]

“Defund the Police” .. doesn’t “really” mean, defund the police ..
creeping incrementalism relies heavily on manipulating language, leveraging+wedging toward otherwise unwanted goals. A mainstay of human reasoning and human law.

Violent crimes are up, people are hurt, proponents deny responsibility. Many routinely vote for bad policies, loudly denying they are doing so. “That’s not what i meant.” etc.

“i’m against abortion,” but i vote for it, just the same. i didn’t “really” vote for it. i voted for it.
it’s an alternate reality that is beyond my understanding.

Jesus did not use all sorts of confusing language to relay His Truth. He could never be in academia.
i’m not sure why so many of us feel the need to try to improve on it.

Thomas Sowell / Academia


TS speaking on academia is such fun. he is an intellectual and in academia. he comes to interesting conclusions.
there are many in academia who think similarly. they don’t receive airtime. even less than TS.

[Falco Underhill]

... the extremist, polarizing tactic is to use guilt-by-association games to portray CRT as Marxist revolutionaries who want to take away our freedoms. That's simply not true of the vast majority of them. And people often seem to be pushing that narrative instead of responding directly to what people like Crenshaw or Bell are actually saying.

We see this in this thread. Josh is clearly not a Marxist, he is more sympathetic to some parts of CRT than I am, but he is a biblical Christian. Nevertheless, very little of this thread takes the time to quote things he is saying and respond to it thoughtfully.

It's better to stick to discussing principles to avoid the personal stuff, imo.

[Bootstrap]

We see this in this thread. Josh is clearly not a Marxist, he is more sympathetic to some parts of CRT than I am, but he is a biblical Christian. Nevertheless, very little of this thread takes the time to quote things he is saying and respond to it thoughtfully.

It's better to stick to discussing principles to avoid the personal stuff, imo.

I agree. Josh took the time to write a paper, referenced in the OP. Few of the comments since then have responded directly to what he wrote.

To me, the best way to foster actual discussion in this thread is to respond directly to his paper, agreeing or disagreeing, and giving reasons, or to respond to others who are doing the same.

[ohio jones]

I would reserve words like "oppresssors" for the kinds of things we traditionally associate with that term.

I try not to use words like that at all.

[Bootstrap]

I would reserve words like "oppresssors" for the kinds of things we traditionally associate with that term.

I try not to use words like that at all.

The Bible uses the word 'oppressors':

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearc ... ersion=CSB

Or for people who prefer the KJV:

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearc ... ersion=KJV

But I think those examples fall in a very different category than most of what we hear from the political left and right in this country. The United States is not under a cruel military occupation, we are not in exile under cruel leaders who oppress us. For biblical Christians, at least, I think using the word the way it is used in the Bible makes a lot of sense.

[ohio jones]

For biblical Christians, at least, I think using the word the way it is used in the Bible makes a lot of sense.

I agree. With three 's's, not four.

[Bootstrap]

For biblical Christians, at least, I think using the word the way it is used in the Bible makes a lot of sense.

I agree. With three 's's, not four.

Oh, were you critcissing my sspelling?

[Robert]

I would reserve words like "oppresssors" for the kinds of things we traditionally associate with that term.

This is the word used by the author of CT. It is carried over to CRT.

[Neto]

Ethnocentrism (defined as a belief that one’s own cultural way is “best”) is essential for a society to survive. If a cultural group decides that another way is better, they will adopt that way of life in place of their own. Then they will again become ethnocentric, because they now believe that the new way is best, better than any other way of life.

When I was in Bible college a new sort of Marxism came to the forefront – only a lot of people didn’t recognize the marxist thought it involved – Liberation Theology. It was presented in my missiology courses as a great work of God, bringing minorities into the “harvest fields” as co-labors. But although the common Biblical terms of sin & salvation were at the forefront, they didn’t mean the same things. “Sin” was defined as being oppressed, and “salvation” as freedom from oppression, In some contexts, this seems to dovetail with a good deal of the talk about “race” today.

Jesus DID tell his disciples that he had other sheep who were not of the same fold (Judaism) and that he was going to bring them in as well. So there is some push here for inter-cultural congregations. But what must happen in order for this to take place now, in this world before his return? Someone must give up their cultural ways of worship and expression. So you have some members of minorities who give up their cultural distinctives and join the “dominant” culture, and some from the majority group who give up theirs, and join the minority group. We could discuss which happens more frequently, but I’m not sure that would be beneficial. I’m not really sure that the best “solution” isn’t simple mutual respect, working together in some settings, but perhaps mostly working separately toward the common goals we share. In our setting in the Banawa village, we encouraged their “ethnocentrism” as expressed in their distinctive styles of worship, prayer, and song. Anyone want to join in in chanting around a pole, in the dark?

Jesus himself preached against the selfish politically empowered groups, Herod’s government, the Sanhedrin, etc

Herod was basically a puppet leader, as was also the Sanhedrin, at least in terms of politics. Jesus never spoke against the real dominant power, Rome. But I do appreciate the focus of the article, as far as it directs attention to the Church. (In the case of the Banawa, a generational "conflict" developed almost immediately upon the start of Christian "services", and an entirely new form of music evolved in the place of the traditional styles. I still love to hear the traditional singing, but the big issue was that there were separate music styles for men & women, so they could never sing together. This "new way" allowed mixed singing for the first time. Is there a "middle way" that would allow "CA" Christians and African American Christians to join in "mixed singing", and "Mixed ministry"?)