Can we please correct this notion that CRT and history are the same thing? They aren't. CRT is CRT, and history is history.
One is an account of important names, dates and events to be ideally portrayed in a neutral, objective manner.
The other is a theoretical approach to interpreting culture and society through the lens of being focused on race as a construct, and applied through an altered version of Karl Marx's 'critical theory,' whereby they have replaced the notion of 'class based oppression' with 'race based oppression' and analyzed it thusly.
CRT is not history, it is a lens by which to interpret history and extrapilate theoretical conclusions on how race influenced certain outcomes.
If you were to teach history through the lense of CRT, you are teaching history with a hyperfocus on racial aspects of historical events, such as racism etc.
This is very different from teaching 'the history of racism,' as every historical event through the lense of CRT will inject race as a factor, rather it is relevant or not.
The contention among those who speak against CRT is not that we shouldn't teach 'the history of racism.' In fact, most people would encourage the teaching the history of racism. What they don't want is the teaching of history through the lense of a Marxist based ideology that is hyperfocused on racism, or race as a construct of segregation.
The notion that 'those who don't want CRT in schools are trying to bury history and cover up historical racism' is false. It is a tactic used to obscure and obfuscate the actual intention behind banning CRT, which is not to ban the teaching of historical racism, but to ban the current practice of what many rightfully see as a Marxist ideology that promotes racial segregation, and in turn perpetuates racism.
They want to ban the perpetuation of teaching race as a construct of segregation. They want equality over equity. They want to de-emphasize race as a point of focus, and they want to teach kids that their behaviors are the main factor that will determine their results over their race or ethnicity.
There is a political incentive to perpetuate racial segregation. This we all know... and pushing CRT in schools is a veiled effort at doing just that under the guise of promoting "social justice" and "anti-racism."
"Anti-racism" is still a focus on racism, if not a form of racism in and of itself, btw, so there's that also.
You are free to debate me on this, but I would ask that anyone who would step up to that debate open by defining the difference between 'equity' and 'equality.'
Demonstrate that you understand the difference between those two words, and I'll be open to anything else you have to say about it.
Fail to demonstrate an understanding of the difference between "equity" and "equality," and I will assume that you don't know what you are talking about, because "equity" is an important concept in CRT (as well as Marx's critical theory,) and if you don't know what it means, then you don't know what CRT is to begin with.
And good day.
One is an account of important names, dates and events to be ideally portrayed in a neutral, objective manner.
The other is a theoretical approach to interpreting culture and society through the lens of being focused on race as a construct, and applied through an altered version of Karl Marx's 'critical theory,' whereby they have replaced the notion of 'class based oppression' with 'race based oppression' and analyzed it thusly.
CRT is not history, it is a lens by which to interpret history and extrapilate theoretical conclusions on how race influenced certain outcomes.
If you were to teach history through the lense of CRT, you are teaching history with a hyperfocus on racial aspects of historical events, such as racism etc.
This is very different from teaching 'the history of racism,' as every historical event through the lense of CRT will inject race as a factor, rather it is relevant or not.
The contention among those who speak against CRT is not that we shouldn't teach 'the history of racism.' In fact, most people would encourage the teaching the history of racism. What they don't want is the teaching of history through the lense of a Marxist based ideology that is hyperfocused on racism, or race as a construct of segregation.
The notion that 'those who don't want CRT in schools are trying to bury history and cover up historical racism' is false. It is a tactic used to obscure and obfuscate the actual intention behind banning CRT, which is not to ban the teaching of historical racism, but to ban the current practice of what many rightfully see as a Marxist ideology that promotes racial segregation, and in turn perpetuates racism.
They want to ban the perpetuation of teaching race as a construct of segregation. They want equality over equity. They want to de-emphasize race as a point of focus, and they want to teach kids that their behaviors are the main factor that will determine their results over their race or ethnicity.
There is a political incentive to perpetuate racial segregation. This we all know... and pushing CRT in schools is a veiled effort at doing just that under the guise of promoting "social justice" and "anti-racism."
"Anti-racism" is still a focus on racism, if not a form of racism in and of itself, btw, so there's that also.
You are free to debate me on this, but I would ask that anyone who would step up to that debate open by defining the difference between 'equity' and 'equality.'
Demonstrate that you understand the difference between those two words, and I'll be open to anything else you have to say about it.
Fail to demonstrate an understanding of the difference between "equity" and "equality," and I will assume that you don't know what you are talking about, because "equity" is an important concept in CRT (as well as Marx's critical theory,) and if you don't know what it means, then you don't know what CRT is to begin with.
And good day.
Can we please correct this notion that CRT and history are the same thing? They aren't. CRT is CRT, and history is history.
One is an account of important names, dates and events to be ideally portrayed in a neutral, objective manner.
The other is a theoretical approach to interpreting culture and society through the lens of being focused on race as a construct, and applied through an altered version of Karl Marx's 'critical theory,' whereby they have replaced the notion of 'class based oppression' with 'race based oppression' and analyzed it thusly.
CRT is not history, it is a lens by which to interpret history and extrapilate theoretical conclusions on how race influenced certain outcomes.
If you were to teach history through the lense of CRT, you are teaching history with a hyperfocus on racial aspects of historical events, such as racism etc.
This is very different from teaching 'the history of racism,' as every historical event through the lense of CRT will inject race as a factor, rather it is relevant or not.
The contention among those who speak against CRT is not that we shouldn't teach 'the history of racism.' In fact, most people would encourage the teaching the history of racism. What they don't want is the teaching of history through the lense of a Marxist based ideology that is hyperfocused on racism, or race as a construct of segregation.
The notion that 'those who don't want CRT in schools are trying to bury history and cover up historical racism' is false. It is a tactic used to obscure and obfuscate the actual intention behind banning CRT, which is not to ban the teaching of historical racism, but to ban the current practice of what many rightfully see as a Marxist ideology that promotes racial segregation, and in turn perpetuates racism.
They want to ban the perpetuation of teaching race as a construct of segregation. They want equality over equity. They want to de-emphasize race as a point of focus, and they want to teach kids that their behaviors are the main factor that will determine their results over their race or ethnicity.
There is a political incentive to perpetuate racial segregation. This we all know... and pushing CRT in schools is a veiled effort at doing just that under the guise of promoting "social justice" and "anti-racism."
"Anti-racism" is still a focus on racism, if not a form of racism in and of itself, btw, so there's that also.
You are free to debate me on this, but I would ask that anyone who would step up to that debate open by defining the difference between 'equity' and 'equality.'
Demonstrate that you understand the difference between those two words, and I'll be open to anything else you have to say about it.
Fail to demonstrate an understanding of the difference between "equity" and "equality," and I will assume that you don't know what you are talking about, because "equity" is an important concept in CRT (as well as Marx's critical theory,) and if you don't know what it means, then you don't know what CRT is to begin with.
And good day.
Arabic
French
Spanish
Portuguese
Deutsch
Turkish
Dutch
Italiano
Russian
Romaian
Portuguese (Brazil)
Greek