Mormons and Critical Race Theory

[drumdude]

This is from the "Introduction to Critical Race Theory, 3rd Edition":

Opening remarks from Angela Harris: "None of my professors talked about race or ethnicity; it was apparently irrelevant to the law. None of my professors in the first year talked about feminism or the concerns of women, either. These concerns were also, apparently, irrelevant. Nowhere, in fact, did the cases and materials we read address concerns of group inequality, sexual difference, or cultural identity. There was only one Law, a law that in its universal majesty applied to everyone without regard to race, color, gender, or creed."

The law that applies to everyone without regard to race, color, gender, or creed, is wrong in the Critical Race Theory. Laws need to be changed and applied differently to different races and genders. Can you see the problem yet?

"Critical race theory not only dares to treat race as central to the law and policy of the United States; it dares to look beyond the popular belief that getting rid of racism means simply getting rid of ignorance or encouraging everyone to “get along.” To read this primer is to be sobered by the recognition that racism is part of the structure of legal institutions."

The textbook is self-contradictory even in the first pages. On one hand it bemoans that the legal system does not take into account race, and then on the other bemoans the racism that exists inside the legal system. It's just not the right type of racism. In critical race theory, the solution to one form of racism is the opposite form of racism.

Here's how critical race theory defines itself (page 3):

“The critical race theory (critical race theory) movement is a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up, but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, context, group- and self-interest, and even feelings and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.

If you're anti-Enlightenment rationalism, and anti-neutral principles of constitutional law, then critical race theory is for you.

Here's the book if you're interested in learning more:

414TizogpSL._SX311_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

[sock puppet]

This is from the "Introduction to Critical Race Theory, 3rd Edition":

Opening remarks from Angela Harris: "None of my professors talked about race or ethnicity; it was apparently irrelevant to the law. None of my professors in the first year talked about feminism or the concerns of women, either. These concerns were also, apparently, irrelevant. Nowhere, in fact, did the cases and materials we read address concerns of group inequality, sexual difference, or cultural identity. There was only one Law, a law that in its universal majesty applied to everyone without regard to race, color, gender, or creed."

The law that applies to everyone without regard to race, color, gender, or creed, is wrong in the Critical Race Theory. Laws need to be changed and applied differently to different races and genders. Can you see the problem yet?

"Critical race theory not only dares to treat race as central to the law and policy of the United States; it dares to look beyond the popular belief that getting rid of racism means simply getting rid of ignorance or encouraging everyone to “get along.” To read this primer is to be sobered by the recognition that racism is part of the structure of legal institutions."

The textbook is self-contradictory even in the first pages. On one hand it bemoans that the legal system does not take into account race, and then on the other bemoans the racism that exists inside the legal system. It's just not the right type of racism. In critical race theory, the solution to one form of racism is the opposite form of racism.

Here's how critical race theory defines itself (page 3):

“The critical race theory (critical race theory) movement is a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up, but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, context, group- and self-interest, and even feelings and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.

If you're anti-Enlightenment rationalism, and anti-neutral principles of constitutional law, then critical race theory is for you.

Here's the book if you're interested in learning more:

414TizogpSL._SX311_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

When racial equilibrium in society is achieved, then nothing more than 'a blind eye' approach from society would be appropriate. In the U.S., we are no where near that equilibrium. In fact, as compared to the mid-1990s, there has been a retrenchment of racial division and disparity. It is dismal, and is marked by the rise of white supremacy (such as at Charlottesville in 2017) and the growing prevalence of display and waiving of the Stars and Bars battle flag of the Confederacy. (Seems alot of people think they're living the Dukes of Hazard these days.)

[drumdude]

Martin Luther King spoke to this very issue. You can't fix racism with more racism.

Secondly, it is possible to work to secure moral ends through moral means. One of the great debates of history has been on the whole. . . (break in the recording) . . . I guess with the many philosophical differences I that have with communism, one of the greatest is found right here. Communism says in the final analysis that any method is proper to bring about the goal of the classless society. This is where nonviolence would break with communism or any other system which argues that the end justifies the means. For we recognize that the end is pre-existent in the means. The means represents the ideal in the end in process. And in the long run of history, destructive means cannot bring about constructive ends.

And so if one is working for a just society, he should use just methods in bringing about that society. If one is working for the goal of an integrated society, then he must seek to work with integration as a fact as he moves toward that. This is why I’ve always insisted that in our demonstrations and in our work it isn’t enough to have Negroes participating, but it is necessary to have white persons participating. This is why on my staff of the Southern Leadership Conference -- I have a staff of 200 and some people -- some 50-60 are white persons because we are seeking to achieve by the very methods we use and the means, the very end we seek. And so the non-violent method says that it is possible to seek to secure moral ends through moral means.

https://www.smu.edu/News/2014/mlk-at-sm ... 7march1966

[sock puppet]

Martin Luther King spoke to this very issue. You can't fix racism with more racism.

Secondly, it is possible to work to secure moral ends through moral means. One of the great debates of history has been on the whole. . . (break in the recording) . . . I guess with the many philosophical differences I that have with communism, one of the greatest is found right here. Communism says in the final analysis that any method is proper to bring about the goal of the classless society. This is where nonviolence would break with communism or any other system which argues that the end justifies the means. For we recognize that the end is pre-existent in the means. The means represents the ideal in the end in process. And in the long run of history, destructive means cannot bring about constructive ends.

And so if one is working for a just society, he should use just methods in bringing about that society. If one is working for the goal of an integrated society, then he must seek to work with integration as a fact as he moves toward that. This is why I’ve always insisted that in our demonstrations and in our work it isn’t enough to have Negroes participating, but it is necessary to have white persons participating. This is why on my staff of the Southern Leadership Conference -- I have a staff of 200 and some people -- some 50-60 are white persons because we are seeking to achieve by the very methods we use and the means, the very end we seek. And so the non-violent method says that it is possible to seek to secure moral ends through moral means.

https://www.smu.edu/News/2014/mlk-at-sm ... 7march1966

Your assumption is that affirmative action is racism. It is not, it is a rectification of the lingering effects of racism.

[drumdude]

Martin Luther King spoke to this very issue. You can't fix racism with more racism.



https://www.smu.edu/News/2014/mlk-at-sm ... 7march1966

Your assumption is that affirmative action is racism. It is not, it is a rectification of the lingering effects of racism.

I recommend reading MLK and trying to understand what he's talking about. Ask yourself what his rectification for violence was. It wasn't fighting back. It was absorbing the injustice, accepting it, not trying to merely balance the scales, but to achieve the higher goal of actual equality.

There is no way to measure the lingering effects of racism. There is no way to quantify the injustice, the immeasurable pain and suffering. There is no point at which affirmative action is finished and has accomplished the goal. There is only injustice added upon injustice.

[Kishkumen]

I am not exactly sure what MLK has to do with giving Black Americans a leg up to make up in some small way for generations of oppression and theft. Yes, MLK is right, an eye for an eye leaves the world blind. What does that have to do with voluntarily helping out people who have been dealt with unjustly? The United States of America could address the injustice in some way, and that would do nothing to invalidate King’s timeless message. Nor would it have anything to do with critical race theory.

[Gadianton]

Here's the book if you're interested in learning more

props for actually reading a book on it.

[drumdude]

I am not exactly sure what MLK has to do with giving Black Americans a leg up to make up in some small way for generations of oppression and theft. Yes, MLK is right, an eye for an eye leaves the world blind. What does that have to do with voluntarily helping out people who have been dealt with unjustly? The United States of America could address the injustice in some way, and that would do nothing to invalidate King’s timeless message. Nor would it have anything to do with critical race theory.

No one is saying the injustice should not be addressed, and no one has a problem with voluntarily helping out people. We can and should debate the best ways forward. Just because a movement like critical race theory has good intentions, does not mean they are the solution.

The question here is how to address the injustice. I notice every time someone defends critical race theory, they have to use language ("small way", "leg up") to minimize the reality. The methods Critical Race Theory has come up with are things like denying Asians admittance into colleges because there are too many Asians. You can hand wave that all day. It is still denying someone something they earned because of the color of their skin. It is, by definition, racist. Just like MLK said, the ends do not justify the means.

But in critical race theory, equality of outcome (not opportunity) is the goal, which has to be achieved by any means necessary including blatantly racist policies.

[Morley]

The question here is how to address the injustice. I notice every time someone defends critical race theory, they have to use language ("small way", "leg up") to minimize the reality. The methods Critical Race Theory has come up with are things like denying Asians admittance into colleges because there are too many Asians. You can hand wave that all day. It is still denying someone something they earned because of the color of their skin. It is, by definition, racist. Just like MLK said, the ends do not justify the means.

But in critical race theory, equality of outcome (not opportunity) is the goal, which has to be achieved by any means necessary including blatantly racist policies.

Where, in your Introduction to Critical Race Theory book, are these gems.

[Atlanticmike]

I am not exactly sure what MLK has to do with giving Black Americans a leg up to make up in some small way for generations of oppression and theft. Yes, MLK is right, an eye for an eye leaves the world blind. What does that have to do with voluntarily helping out people who have been dealt with unjustly? The United States of America could address the injustice in some way, and that would do nothing to invalidate King’s timeless message. Nor would it have anything to do with critical race theory.

Your post perfectly explains why critical race theory is a disease and hurts POC! If I'm reading your post correctly, when you SEE a black person, you SEE a person that needs a leg up because of their skin color. Basically, you SEE a victim. And that's what critical race theory teaches, that POC are victims and white people are the oppressors. Teaching children they're victims because of their skin color is mental slavery. Living a life with a victim mentality is one of the hardest things you can do to yourself emotionally. The sad part is, if a group of people are taught they're victims, they'll always feel like they need someone to support them, take care of them, make important decisions for them. That's why critical race theory is dangerous! critical race theory tells POC that they need whitey to help them, to watch over them, hold their hand, comfort them, make sure they have what they need. If you actually think about it, critical race theory sets up POC to be dependent on White people, it takes away their mental freedom. In that aspect, it's not much different than Mormonism.