For instance, Black people have more difficulty to access to prestigious universities. Is it because the entrance system is discriminatory by itself, because of the people who select the applicants, or because the whole educational system is discriminatory.
Yes. When my sons were in school they insisted we had to check one box and fought with them about it because they are both. I even asked, “What is this? Is Missouri going by the one drop rule?” The answer and the secretary literally said, “Yes.” I was livid, to put it nicely. I threw fits about this crap all through their school years. Getting in them into high education was no picnic either.
One can say that if there are no more racists, there is no more racism. Racism is not an abstract thing but it is an ideology, a view of the world. If a “neutral” law has racial discriminatory effects, is it because le law itself, the people who apply it, or because the effects are embedded in the system.
Racism is everywhere- in our politics, in our legal system, in our educational system, in our institutions. Some of is blatant and some is hidden in common situations, but racists are still around, starting with the KKK, “The Cross, The Arm, and the Sword”, White Christian Nationalists, Skinheads, Neo-Nazis, Aryan Nation, etc etc.
If I look from another point of view, will a young black man, coming from a rich black family, who has been in same high school as the young white men from rich white families, enter a prestigious university as easily as them?
Sadly no. They struggle, scratch and claw all the way, constantly having to prove themselves.
It is true that the average black family is poorer than the average white family, but is it racism or social inequality?
Both
Is it possible that CRT’s promoters make a mistake, fighting racism where, for instance, there is social exploitation?
Yes, it is, but sometimes the two are mixed together, such as our history- You’ve heard it said that black women have two strikes against them? As they get older, unlike white women who end up with two, they end up with 3 strikes (racism, sexism, and ageism).
Race does not defines by itself a whole human being.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again- there is no such thing as race based on skin colour. There is only one human species and the human species is the sum total of the human race- the only race among humans. If there was more than race/species among humans, how in the world do we mate with people of different skin colours and have offsprings? We can’t mate with chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and have babies with them. There is a species barrier that keeps humans and other apes from producing offspring together. Don’t ask me about the humanoids mating in the past, but other apes are apparently not humanoid. That and a full grown chimp or gorilla could kill a human, but if the feelings were mutual sexually and beastiality was safe there’d be no offspring from such a union. You can’t even grow a combination of the two in a petri dish, despite there being a gorilla with a kidney that a human could use if needed.
I smile to you Mriana, i understand what you are telling.
I agree there is only one human race. But many people don’t believe that. French constitution has been edited to suppress any mention of race.
Your last post shows me the gap existing between USA and Europe.
One trick in France is that the laws are made by the central state and are the same for every one. One region cannot decide that such person is banned from voting.
In France, to ask people about their race and to classify them according to that is strictly forbidden and it is forbidden to keep statistics.
But this lack of statistics has been criticized. In fact, it is said that to hide numbers forbids to see the problem. Other people say that in fact, the numbers are known by other means.
In fact, in my case, 3 of my great grants parents were not born French and 2 of them were not born in Europe. My genetic profile is a puzzle. I am wondering about how i could answer such questions.
I don’t know if it is related to the subject. ML King and R. Kennedy were were both murdered in 1968, 2 months apart.
When ML King was killed, he has just proclaimed he supported Kennedy candidacy to the presidency.
I have been told that even if they were not friends and if, in the past, ML King had criticized R. Kennedy, both were working to build a multi racial movement, fighting against racism and for the poor rights.
In fact ML King was organizing a multi racial movement, the “Poor People’s Campaign” to address issues of economic justice. And he was murdered the day he was speaking at a rally, to support black workers on strike.
Can the two murders be linked, and have been engineered as a defense of the system against such a project?
I don’t say that discrimination does not exist, as it does, but it is formally punished by law.
France’s penal code forbids any private defamation of a person or group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap (Article R. 624-3). The penal code forbids any private insult toward a person or group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap (Article R. 624-4). The penal code forbids any private incitement to discrimination or to hatred or violence against a person or group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap (Article R. 625-7).
The people who committed these offenses are condemned to pay fines, and can be forbidden to detain weapons.
There are other laws going in the same direction in most European countries.
Have you such laws in USA?
In fact, most of what characterizes CRT views exist in France but in a very different context.
To illustrate the social and racial mix of problems, i have 2 friends who have wed African men. Their children are fantastic. They have baby sited my daughter when she was young and so. All children told me that they were victim of racism, but not institutional one.
Race is a social construct, without a biological basis:
I agree also, as @mriana had mentioned about humans "mating" with gorillas or chimpanzees ...
Or to take it in another direction - and I mean no disrespect to anyone - it’s just an analogy:
Race as another name for Breed? as we use the term with dogs.
A breed has various characteristics. If breeds mix, the characteristics mix.
We don’t say that’s a German Shepard race of dog - that’s the breed. I think even when a single breed has different distinctive colors or markings, we don’t call it a race of Shepard … do we? (honest question, I can’t say that I’ve ever heard that)
And maybe even closer to home - breeds of dogs are “maintained” by humans. Breedism is non-existent in dogs. Without humans, dogs would eventually become “Heinz-57”. And with slowly evolving societal changes - so are humans.
Is it possible that CRT’s promoters make a mistake, fighting racism where, for instance, there is social exploitation?
That would be a mistake a politician could make, but CRT is only there to inform you of legal and historical matters. We should take it's data and the information of sociology and whatever disciplines when making policy decisions. So the mistake would not be CRTs, it would be in how it is applied
2) Racism has been the norm for most of USA history.
Racism exists out of individual hatred or intention.
Speaking only of my own experiences, I see those two as potentially conflicting. Again (I get hung up on these things) - MAYBE we need clear, operational definitions of terms.
If you define “Racism” as #3 - individual, intentional hatred, then it should not be used in so many various situations.
I was raised in a notoriously white neighborhood / city (i.e. the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice filed a complaint in this Court, alleging that the City… has engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination in housing in violation of The Fair Housing Act, ) Though to be clear - my parents bought the land back when it was mostly farmland and fields.
To me, Black people were people that lived elsewhere, like cowboys and Indians. My family wasn’t explicitly racist, but looking back, I can see those influences. As a kid I would be “Oh look! There’s a Black person.” Is that “Racist”? As a teen, I’d see a Black person and wonder “what is he doing here?” Is that racist?
I see those questions coming not from hate or distrust, but from a cultural/societal … bias?
The way my parents or in-laws talked, if it were on social media, they’d be raked over the coals for racism, yet it wasn’t out of hatred. To some extent, sadly, ignorance.
So I wouldn’t say “Racism” has been a norm, as in it’s a normal attitude of hatred. But I would agree that there has been an inherent, systemic level of bias. But I also see that slowly dissolving. However, extremists - literally on both sides - still want to fan the flames.
I should give this some more time, but just quickly, I don't see them conflicting, but I know what you are getting at.
I think the “conflict” is in needing to have explicit racism, the kind that is overt and maybe the person just says the don’t like “X” type of people. Otherwise it’s hard to understand what “racism” means. So, from your description, it sounds like your family didn’t fit that definition, but was advantaged by where you lived, the land they bought. It doesn’t matter if you recognized it or not, or did anything to alleviate it, or cause it, or not cause it. You were just there in a system that advantaged one set of people over another for no reason that fits any biological reasoning. Someone, sometime did something explicit to create that advantage, maybe they didn’t do it out of hate either, they just were taught to do things that way, so it seemed reasonable. Everyone was doing things that way, so no one questioned it.
CRT is a way to question those decisions. In most cases, we won’t ever find the person who did it, or know their motivations, but the effect on people living today is the same. And we are alive today, so we are the ones who get to do something consciously.
I should give this some more time, but just quickly, I don’t see them conflicting, but I know what you are getting at.
I think the “conflict” is in needing to have explicit racism, the kind that is overt and maybe the person just says the don’t like “X” type of people. Otherwise it’s hard to understand what “racism” means. So, from your description, it sounds like your family didn’t fit that definition, but was advantaged by where you lived, the land they bought. It doesn’t matter if you recognized it or not, or did anything to alleviate it, or cause it, or not cause it. You were just there in a system that advantaged one set of people over another for no reason that fits any biological reasoning. Someone, sometime did something explicit to create that advantage, maybe they didn’t do it out of hate either, they just were taught to do things that way, so it seemed reasonable. Everyone was doing things that way, so no one questioned it.
CRT is a way to question those decisions. In most cases, we won’t ever find the person who did it, or know their motivations, but the effect on people living today is the same. And we are alive today, so we are the ones who get to do something consciously.
Could you make a short list of the points that you think CRT covers? The people who are against CRT have one list, and the ones who are for it have a completely different list. It’s one of the weirder things I’ve seen in recent decades.
It doesn't make any clear points because it is postmodern gibberish. CRT was intended by its creators to be a way to discuss prejudice that is not rooted in "White Male" thinking. The history of racism is well documented and can easily be studied. Same goes for legal theories about race. But these are Eurocentric ideas or whatever, and non-Whites are alienated from that.
To me, Black people were people that lived elsewhere, like cowboys and Indians. My family wasn’t explicitly racist, but looking back, I can see those influences. As a kid I would be “Oh look! There’s a Black person.” Is that “Racist”? As a teen, I’d see a Black person and wonder “what is he doing here?” Is that racist?
I see those questions coming not from hate or distrust, but from a cultural/societal … bias?
Blacks would call it racism and Whites would not. The harsh truth is there is not really any common ground here. It depends which side you’re on.
I smile to you Mriana, i understand what you are telling.
Thank you.
Have you such laws in USA?
The closest thing we have is “it’s unlawful to discriminate on the bases of race, creed, colour, ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, sexual orientation, nationality” I think those are all the minorities covered. However, if anyone violates it, nothing is done. Years ago, I lost a job because of the man I was dating. My boss wanted me to stop dating said Black man (not exact words). I refused and he fired me. I took it to the NAACP and a government organization, but they said there was nothing they could do without witnesses. I was screwed. I’ve also been thrown out of a store because my sons were (1/2) Black. The person ignored the 1/2, of course. Only thing we could do was not patronize them again.
I agree also, as @mriana had mentioned about humans “mating” with gorillas or chimpanzees …
Or to take it in another direction – and I mean no disrespect to anyone – it’s just an analogy:
Race as another name for Breed? as we use the term with dogs.
A breed has various characteristics. If breeds mix, the characteristics mix.
To me, breed is acceptable, because humans are animals, but I would not use race to mean breed, because human is the race and the breed would be Asian, European/white, African/Black, Indian (India), Native American, Indigenous, Latino, etc.
To me, Black people were people that lived elsewhere, like cowboys and Indians. My family wasn’t explicitly racist, but looking back, I can see those influences. As a kid I would be “Oh look! There’s a Black person.” Is that “Racist”? As a teen, I’d see a Black person and wonder “what is he doing here?” Is that racist?
The simple answer would be “yes”, but to explain further, it’s more like “racial bias”. Why can’t you just see another human being? The only difference it the colour of one’s skin.
In 1967, Loving v Virginia won the right to marry a person of a different skin colour. Before that, while infidelity was a misdemeanor, it was a crime (a felony) to marry interracially, at least in Virginia and other states in the South. However, the Massa could make as many “melatos/half-breeds”, “quadroons” and “octoroons” he wanted, but if anyone of them was “white as snow” and was a house slave that went to town, it might even been heard “put a sign on it” because they could “pass” and it was this “passing” that made it easy to have a minority of white person with Sickle Cell Anemia. Women especially after they were freed hid the fact that their grandmother or great grandmother was all Black and kept their heritage a secret, even from their husbands. Even so, Loving v Virginia had a lot of stupid religious BS spewed in court. This BS, ironically, is much like we hear today about gay marriage, so I guess one could say, Loving v Virginia could be a supporting case for gay marriage, if it hasn’t been used already.
Again, we are all human and thanks to Loving v Virginia, my sons are free to exist without being take from their white mother (another thing that also happened) and placed with a Black family. The white mother would not serve as much jail time as the Black man, if she served any, but she wouldn’t have her baby, which is a harsher punishment, IMO.
Ok so there is a Black person… big deal.
Another thing, which my 32 y.o. son posted on his FB page the other day- making mixed people chose which groups they want to be with. The mean said it shouldn’t have to be because we all human. I never allowed anyone to choose what colour my sons are because they are both, but most of all they are human and to neglect the white side and insist they are all black to an ancient “One Drop Law” is stupid. Yes, the school tried to make me say they are Black, when they are not just Black, ignoring the fact that their mother is white and that we are ALL human. This law/rule, now in the 21st century is suppose to be discrimination and illegal, but states like Missouri (border state) and “Confederate” (Southern) states still try to impose it. I literally stood there and asked the school secretary, when my sons were in elementary school, “What is this? Y’all going by the One Drop rule?” and she said, “Yes.” I could have gotten the school on that one. In the end, my older son who’s lighter, was labelled “Black” and my younger son who’s darker, was labelled “white” just for the “school lunch program” for the school “to get funding”. Right. Again, I could have taken the school to court for that BS.
So my sons, who look like me, except darker by degrees, are simply humans, just as I am. You see me as human, a person, just like you, but do you really see my sons, who look like me, as Black (despite one being lighter than the other) and as though they aren’t equal to you as a human? OK the darker son looks more like his father, but you get the point- I hope. My ex-husband, despite being an asshole, is human and looks human just as I am, but somehow he’s one you’d say, “there’s a Black person”, as though he’s an oddity or something other than human like you would a dog running the streets? So yes, it is rather racist to say, “there’s a Black person”. Black people, as a rule, don’t go around saying, “there’s a white person”, unless a white person ticks them off and they are racist too. We don’t see cats and dogs hating on each other because the colour of their fur. It’s more territorial stuff, maybe even a fight over who’s mating with said female, and/or protecting offspring, but not fur colour. The other exception is humans making them fight (dog fighting, chicken fighting, etc), which is illegal.
There’s more history on this subject, but I think that’s a fair start, that anyone can research further. BTW, when I was in college, I took African-American Studies courses and the professors went around asking each student why they were taking said course. My answer was- “I’m taking it for my sons, who are 1/2 Black, and I hope to share what I learn with them.” The different professors all said that was very admirable. Needless to say, there were very few “white people” in those courses. I was a minority, BUT I think it puts me further ahead than most “white people” and I put it in quotes not because I’m part Native American, but because I do not consider myself “white”. I consider myself human. I refuse to mark a “race” even for myself or I mark “other” and put Human in any space that is provided. I also took some courses in Native American Studies too, while in college, where I didn’t stick out as much, despite there being several Native Americans from various tribes in those classes, but even then I didn’t really care. Everyone looks human to me, including those from Asia. I don’t understand how anyone can treat Asian-Americans like some are treating them as of late either, because they too are human.
ROFLMAO! I guess I really am “not white”, but if you looked at me, you’d insist I was, yet I say it is. Please, don’t stereotype any group of humans, because it just shows you don’t know humans.
If you define “Racism” as #3 – individual, intentional hatred, then it should not be used in so many various situations.
Racism is taught and sometimes it is taught for so many generations that it is unrecognizable as that and individuals don’t realize they are doing it, yet they don’t actually hate. If questioned they may even say they don’t hate and maybe they realize or maybe they don’t that it was ingrained into them at an early age. Thus, why history is important. This is not extremism. We all need to learn history and it should also be learned that racism is taught. No child is born a racist, but they are taught to be racist, sometimes unknowingly.
For example, my mother had a friend when she was little, named Patsy. My great grandfather knew Patsy father because he worked for him. My great grandfather told my mother, it was OK to hang out with Patsy, but she had to stay away from her brother (Black boys and men in general for that matter). Do you see the set up, the teaching? The unspoken instilled fear? At the time, people didn’t see it, because that’s how it was socially. Even segregation was accepted at one time by everyone and few called it racism, but it was and it was taught, yet there was no hate behind it from everyone in society. That’s just how it was. Again, this is not extremism to point such things out to society. It is a means to strive towards equality, to be humanized, because humans are human. Segregation dehumanized people and Black boys were demonized to white girls, but that’s what society did at the time. It wasn’t good, but people striving to change things in society and better society, as well as the human race need point these things out in order to change things. Black men and boys need not be feared anymore than any other men. You can walk down the street/sidewalk, walk right past each other, it be no different than walking past anyone else. By the same token, we need to point out the racism and discrimination that still happens in today’s society, in order to better society and create an equal and just society.
CRT was intended by its creators to be a way to discuss prejudice that is not rooted in “White Male” thinking.
I’m not really sure what CRT is myself, but most racism, at least in the U.S. (and maybe the U.K., Canada, and Australia) is based in “white male thinking”. Now in Asia, the racism is different and I’m sure it exists there too, but in “white dominated societies”, it is based in “white male thinking”, especially “white males” in power and want to stay in power. Of course, in the U.S., this all started with slavery, by slave owners who were generally male and often “cracked the whip”, thus where the word “cracker” as a slur came to be. “Cracker” meant “one who cracks the whip” and often the person was a white male, but sometimes a male slave was forced to “crack the whip” on his own and he too was labelled “cracker”. Even so, it was all rooted in “white male thinking” and even when this country began, women were even considered lesser than the “white male”, not able to own property, vote, or much else with the male who ruled her life to make decision for her. “White women” were one rung beneath the “white man” and one rung above everyone else.
I had no doubts, but to some it might have sounded as if humans could mate with other hominids. I just wanted to remove all possible misunderstanding.
Witness the common mistake of “The Scopes Monkey Trial”, which of course misses the point altogether.
Fair enough. This is a group of mostly educated people, so I just assumed everyone knew that. Sometimes I forget what assume means and KISS isn’t always the best way to go.
CRT was intended by its creators to be a way to discuss prejudice that is not rooted in “White Male” thinking.
I’m not really sure what CRT is myself, but most racism, at least in the U.S. (and maybe the U.K., Canada, and Australia) is based in “white male thinking”. Now in Asia, the racism is different and I’m sure it exists there too, but in “white dominated societies”, it is based in “white male thinking”, especially “white males” in power and want to stay in power. Of course, in the U.S., this all started with slavery, by slave owners who were generally male and often “cracked the whip”, thus where the word “cracker” as a slur came to be. “Cracker” meant “one who cracks the whip” and often the person was a white male, but sometimes a male slave was forced to “crack the whip” on his own and he too was labelled “cracker”. Even so, it was all rooted in “white male thinking” and even when this country began, women were even considered lesser than the “white male”, not able to own property, vote, or much else with the male who ruled her life to make decision for her. “White women” were one rung beneath the “white man” and one rung above everyone else.
White Male thinking in this case means things like reason, and objective facts. CRT advocates are uncomfortable with this because it is Eurocentric. That’s why they emphasize things like “storytelling” and “socially constructed narratives”.
