Top U.S General Defends Critical Race Theory.

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from (self.debatealtright)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Brilliant comments. Every word. The study of history should NOT be controversial.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The study of history should NOT be controversial.

History is going to be controversial because we always have incomplete facts. Even well documented historical events can be open for interpretation. There are teams of people that start 'spinning' historical events right after they happen.

History is too valuable to governments, political parties, militaries, and religions to just be left up to independent researchers. State historians and intelligence agencies are heavily involved in shaping our history and therefore I welcome controversy because something that's not controversial is often times state approved thought.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Although there are increasing attacks on 'academic freedom' in several countries, most historians in most countries still have the right and responsibility to teach and learn about all aspects of history, and to critique obvious biases. This is an old requirement for historians. CRT is the politicization of historical content. The phrase CRT shouldn't exist. There are responsible historians and those who are not responsible. To your point about the manipulation of history, I read recently that school textbooks in Texas were purposefully misleading with regard to certainly historical events. This has to stop.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

CRT is the politicization of historical content.

It is. Now lets look at its origins?

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

CRT originated in the mid-1970s in the writings of several American legal scholars, including Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Cheryl Harris, Charles R. Lawrence III, Mari Matsuda, and Patricia J. Williams.[2] It emerged as a movement by the 1980s, reworking theories of critical legal studies (CLS) with more focus on race.[2][8] CRT is grounded in critical theory[9] and draws from thinkers such as Antonio Gramsci, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, and W. E. B. DuBois, as well as the Black Power, Chicano, and radical feminist movements from the 1960s and 1970s.[2]

Chicanos? Black Power? Feminists? Yikes.

But even still, we know this theory is BS/agenda pushing for other reasons.

CRT emphasizes how racism and disparate racial outcomes can be the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices by individuals.[10][11] It also views race as a socially constructed identity[10] which serves to oppress non-white people.[12] In the field of legal studies, CRT emphasizes that merely making laws colorblind on paper may not be enough to make the application of the laws colorblind; ostensibly colorblind laws can be applied in racially discriminatory ways.[13] Intersectionality – which emphasizes that race can intersect with other identities (such as gender and class) to produce complex combinations of power and disadvantage – is a key CRT concept.[14]

The last 50 years already saw several (if not all) White countries open themselves up and granted equal opportunities or access to literally all the same services or institutions that White people had built. It's not exactly a conspiracy why race gaps still exist unless you take the absolutist approach that every single person on Earth are born the exact same way and are expected to perform the same. I ironically made another separate thread in the recent days that even tackled this idea head on. When or where in history did we even find all human races being on parity with each other? So far, nobody actually has a clue when this was even possible.

https://saidit.net/s/debatealtright/comments/8039/how_do_you_debunk_the_argument_that_certain_races/

CRT even comes across as another reason to blur the lines and refuse to admit certain failure will always exist in multicultural societies. Like we're suppose to pretend that White oppression is really this complex mechanic, even though there are 100% non-white countries that exist, and the results are either superb (i.e Japan), middle-tier (i.e Brazil), or chaos (i.e Liberia).

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well CRT is about narratives as much as truth which is why people protest about it. It's not because they're afraid of history being taught it's that they disagree profoundly with the anti-white narrative contained within CRT. Framing it as a war against history is a slimy little trick but I'd expect nothing different. Our society is full of slimy little tricksters.

That being said I presume you want soldiers reading books that are thoroughly patriotic or even chauvinistic in their perspective on American history right? This is, after all, merely a matter of learning all angles not indoctrination of a certain outlook and world-view.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Our society is full of slimy little tricksters.

It's not really an emotional issue. It's related to understanding the past. As a historian, I've seen in high school and college and several countries that students of history have for decades wanted to know much more about the subject, warts and all. In fact, students often have a sense that something is missing when they are given white-washed or incomplete histories. The only solution to dealing with those who are controlling the historical narratives is to offer much more information, not less. This is the fundamental principle of Historicism and New Historicism and other theories and methods of historiography.