What are your thoughts re Hegelian Dialectic & CRT in the Church?

[Falco Underhill]

So do you want to actually discuss what Bell and Crenshaw mean by the term, since they invented it? I think that's where you should start if you actually want a theoretical analysis of its concepts, as I pointed out here:

You and I have already been down that road. We didn't use Crenshaw or Bell for definitions, but we did use a definition by a college that teaches it and we both agreed on it. At this point, I really don't feel like going over all the basics again.

[Bootstrap]

So do you want to actually discuss what Bell and Crenshaw mean by the term, since they invented it? I think that's where you should start if you actually want a theoretical analysis of its concepts, as I pointed out here:

You and I have already been down that road. We didn't use Crenshaw or Bell for definitions, but we did use a definition by a college that teaches it and we both agreed on it. At this point, I really don't feel like going over all the basics again.

I have no idea what you mean by "a theoretical analysis of its concepts". To me, that usually starts by taking something written by a leader of the movement and looking at it, piece by piece, while discussing it. FWIW, I have never done this myself with anything written by people in the CRT movement, I don't think I'm an expert on this, but this thread hasn't helped me become more expert.

Or if you are interested in what is being taught "in the Church", perhaps starting with some set of teachings on race that are used in some sector of the church.

You know, the kind of thing that you don't find in most politically driven discussions.

[Falco Underhill]

So do you want to actually discuss what Bell and Crenshaw mean by the term, since they invented it? I think that's where you should start if you actually want a theoretical analysis of its concepts, as I pointed out here:

You and I have already been down that road. We didn't use Crenshaw or Bell for definitions, but we did use a definition by a college that teaches it and we both agreed on it. At this point, I really don't feel like going over all the basics again.

I have no idea what you mean by "a theoretical analysis of its concepts". To me, that usually starts by taking something written by a leader of the movement and looking at it, piece by piece, while discussing it.

Or if you are interested in what is being taught "in the Church", perhaps starting with some set of teachings on race that are used in some sector of the church.

You know, the kind of thing that you don't find in most politically driven discussions.

Well, the last time I was trying to do an analysis on something Herbert Marcuse wrote, and Ken chimed in to tell it was all irrelevant because most people know nothing about theory anyway and besides Herbert Marcuse has nothing to do with today's activist movements.

Then I explained why he was mistaken, and why his concepts are still very relevant.

After that, the conversation became politics again, but I may continue my discussion along those lines sometime.

[Bootstrap]

I have no idea what you mean by "a theoretical analysis of its concepts". To me, that usually starts by taking something written by a leader of the movement and looking at it, piece by piece, while discussing it.

Or if you are interested in what is being taught "in the Church", perhaps starting with some set of teachings on race that are used in some sector of the church.

You know, the kind of thing that you don't find in most politically driven discussions.

Well, the last time I was trying to do an analysis on something Herbert Marcuse wrote, and Ken chimed in to tell it was all irrelevant because most people know nothing about theory anyway and besides Herbert Marcuse has nothing to do with today's activist movements.

Are you saying that Marcuse is a leader of the CRT movement? Or that he is writing materials used in churches? Or are you saying that today's leaders quote Marcuse and use him in their writings? If so, what exactly are they quoting and what are the saying about it?

I know, for instance, that Karl Marx quoted Adam Smith and was very familiar with his writings, and Milton Friedman was very familiar with Karl Marx, I heard him quote Marx once, agreeing with something he said. I don't think that means Friedman was Marxist or wanted a Communist Revolution, and I don't think that means that Marx was a Capitalist. But in the political world, this kind of "guilt-by-association" game is widespread.

I really think most BLM people I have met don't read or think about these things, they are angry about things like this:

Here's something I find uncomfortable about this thread.

According to the courts, George Floyd was murdered. Breona Taylor was murdered. Ahmad Arbery was murdered. I could go on and on. The jury is in, the facts have been heard. But these cases only succeeded because people made a lot of noise, there were real attempts to bury them.

And in every case, there seems to be an attempt to shut people up if they are concerned about this. I don't think most of the people who are upset about this are Marxists, I think a LOT of people don't like police killing civilians. And if we don't like the idea of a police state, that's the way it should be. That's not Marxism, it's basic human rights.

Why do you think most Marxist governments were overthrown? Don't the same principles apply when our own government does these things?

[Ken]

How about an actual example of how Critical Race Theory might be used in real life? I'm more familiar with how it might be used in education than church administration so I'll use an education example.

It has come to the attention of educational administrators that Black school children are disciplined more frequently and more severely than White children. This is a national phenomenon and the numbers are stark. For example, Black children are suspended from school an average of 5-times longer than White children. Data on this subject is widespread and easy to find.

One could come up with a variety of different theories to explain what is happening. Historically the most common theories would assume that the data are legitimate and focus on explanations for the CHILDREN'S behavior. Such as:

RACIAL EXPLANATION: Black children are just genetically more inclined to misbehave in school and are naturally less studious, etc. This is a common historic and racist belief. Racist in the sense that it is using racial attributes as an explanation.

CULTURAL EXPLANATION: Black culture is less supportive of education and so Black children and families to not value and respect education to the same extent as White or Asian children and families. These are the common explanations that get into topics like absent fathers, single parent families in the Black community, etc.

POVERTY EXPLANATION: Poorer children tend to do less well in school than wealthier children and have more behavioral issues. Perhaps it is fact that Black children tend to come from poor families that explains the higher discipline rates.

ENVIRONMENTAL EXPLANATION: Black children nationwide tend to be more likely to live in polluted communities than White children and are more likely to live in older substandard housing with things like lead paint and drink water tainted with lead. Perhaps there is an environmental reason for this disparity.

Critical Race Theory will turn this question on its head and suggest that maybe there is nothing wrong with the CHILDREN'S behavior at all. Maybe it is the behavior of the ADULTS that is the problem and suggest...

SYSTEMIC RACISM EXPLANATION: Perhaps Black children on average actually behave no differently than White children but are disciplined more harshly for the same offenses due to the implicit biases of teachers and administrators. In other words, perhaps the problem is the SYSTEM, not the behavior of individual children.

Off the top of my head those are five different explanations or theories for an observed phenomenon of higher discipline rates for Black children. I'm sure one could come up with even more such as perhaps a religious explanation which I guess would be a subset of culture. Traditional analysts might dig into all kinds of sociological investigations of the Black community and Black families to try to understand what is happening. A Critical Race Theorist will explore the question from the other end and ask if it is the behavior of the ADULTS rather than the CHILDREN that is at issue. Which is an entirely different problem suggesting entirely different avenues of research and entirely different solutions.

So what is ACTUALLY happening now that we have been studying this topic for a decade or more? It turns out that recent research has shown that disparities in discipline rates are largely explained by systemic biases on the part of the ADULTS doing the disciplining. For example: https://www.edweek.org/leadership/opini ... ed/2021/08

Which of course has major implications for composing solutions to this problem. If the problem is not Black children but the system, then it is the system that needs fixing, not Black children. And once you start pulling on this thread all kinds of other issues emerge. We know that higher rates of suspensions and discipline result in lower educational achievement. So perhaps this systemic discipline bias that starts in primary school is contributing to the lower average performance of Black students on standardized assessments. And since educational performance is also linked to rates of juvenile delinquency and crime, perhaps the biased behavior of teachers and administrators when it comes to school discipline is also contributing to higher rates of juvenile delinquency among Black children. In other words, if, starting in kindergarten, you treat Black children like they are worse than White children, maybe it will become a self-fulfilling prophesy and they will come to believe it or behave like it.

And if you want to start solving this problem you need to start asking teachers and administrators to start exploring whether they have implicit biases that are leading to these outcomes. And, horror of horror, you start seeing elements of Critical Race Theory popping up in teacher training. Or at least the subject of implicit bias and systemic racism. And then we are off and running with conservatives protesting it at school board meetings, grandstanding legislators writing laws about it. Some white teachers standing up and shouting "I'm not racist, why are you accusing me of being racist" and so forth.

That is just one example of how Critical Race Theory can be useful in analyzing and addressing a specific topic in education. It isn't something you are teaching children. It is a tool used by researchers to explore a topic of concern to educators and educational administration and find solutions. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with some camel's nose under the tent attempt to insert Marxism into schools.

[Falco Underhill]

I have no idea what you mean by "a theoretical analysis of its concepts". To me, that usually starts by taking something written by a leader of the movement and looking at it, piece by piece, while discussing it.

Or if you are interested in what is being taught "in the Church", perhaps starting with some set of teachings on race that are used in some sector of the church.

You know, the kind of thing that you don't find in most politically driven discussions.

Well, the last time I was trying to do an analysis on something Herbert Marcuse wrote, and Ken chimed in to tell it was all irrelevant because most people know nothing about theory anyway and besides Herbert Marcuse has nothing to do with today's activist movements.

Are you saying that Marcuse is a leader of the CRT movement? Or that he is writing materials used in churches? Or are you saying that today's leaders quote Marcuse and use him in their writings? If so, what exactly are they quoting and what are the saying about it?

No, that isn't what I'm saying. You can go back to see what I said.

[Bootstrap]

Are you saying that Marcuse is a leader of the CRT movement? Or that he is writing materials used in churches? Or are you saying that today's leaders quote Marcuse and use him in their writings? If so, what exactly are they quoting and what are the saying about it?

No, that isn't what I'm saying. You can go back to see what I said.

You seem to be saying that CRT people cannot define what they believe, their opponents should do that for them. You claim that they "studiously avoid" referring to Marcuse, but that he is a major influence on them anyway.

So you get to decide what they believe and teach, and they don't? Can I decide that Karl Marx is a major influence on your thought and you studiously avoid admitting that? I don't understand what method you are using to determine what they are actually teaching. How much Marcuse have you personally read? How much Bell or Crenshaw have you read?

[Falco Underhill]

Are you saying that Marcuse is a leader of the CRT movement? Or that he is writing materials used in churches? Or are you saying that today's leaders quote Marcuse and use him in their writings? If so, what exactly are they quoting and what are the saying about it?

No, that isn't what I'm saying. You can go back to see what I said.

You seem to be saying that CRT people cannot define what they believe, their opponents should do that for them. You claim that they "studiously avoid" referring to Marcuse, but that he is a major influence on them anyway.

CRT's dont believe half the United States get to define themselves as non-racist.

I cited a Wikipedia article that says many Critical Theorists avoid admitting influence by Marcuse today because of the association with Marxism, and explained why I think CRT's fall into that category.

CRT's are Critical Theorists. Critical Race Theory is Critical Theory applied to Race. I'm simply looking at the history of Critical Theory to understand it better in its full context.

I told you we both agreed on their definitions before and examined them as such but I'm not looking to repeat myself.

[Bootstrap]

You seem to be saying that CRT people cannot define what they believe, their opponents should do that for them. You claim that they "studiously avoid" referring to Marcuse, but that he is a major influence on them anyway.

CRT's dont believe half the United States get to define themselves as non-racist.

Do you know what CRT is?

CRT really isn't about calling people racist. It's about analyzing systems. It tries to take the needs and interests of white people into account, looking for solutions that work for everyone, knowing that any system that harms white people won't last. And it's not terribly interested in your motives, it's interested in the effects of specific programs. For instance, the article that launched it all said that Brown v. Board of Education was well-intentioned, but did not have the effects that people had hoped.

Black children might have been better off without Brown v. Board, Bell says

This interview with the founder may shed some light on this:

[Bootstrap]

CRT's are Critical Theorists. Critical Race Theory is Critical Theory applied to Race. I'm simply looking at the history of Critical Theory to understand it better in its full context.

I think you are missing what critical theory is. Wikipedia's definition is reasonably good on this:

A critical theory is any approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture to reveal and challenge power structures. With roots in sociology and literary criticism, it argues that social problems stem more from social structures and cultural assumptions than from individuals. It argues that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation.

So a critical theory says we should stop with all the ideological one-liners, step back, and look at the social structures and cultural assumptions that are causing problems in our society. I can't see anything wrong with that. It's a very pragmatic approach. It has nothing to do with Marxist revolutions.