CRT: Critical Race Theory as Bogeyman

[Bells]

No, I don't think you should be telling me what I can and can't comment on. It is perfectly permissible for me to comment on something that is unimportant, if I wish to do so, even if you would prefer that I did not.

But let's keep in mind what you're complaining about here, lest one of us blows this out of proportion. I wrote:

I assume that Tiassa did not mean to imply that slavery is always racist. Certainly the American experience of slavery was racist, but historically there are plenty of examples of slavery in which race was neither a motivator nor was it advanced as a justification.
I noticed that it was possible to interpret Tiassa's words as trying to imply that slavery is always racist, so I commented. Note that I explicitly said that I assumed this was not what Tiassa meant to imply.

You jumped on me because you made a whole bunch of incorrect assumptions about this. When you asked me whether I wanted to "die on the hill" of assuming something about Tiassa, I said it wasn't very important. I was trying to imply that there was no need for you to make a big issue out of it. But you weren't willing to let it go. And now you're suggesting I shouldn't comment on certain topics. You haven't even said why you'd prefer if I didn't comment. That's bad form, Bells.

No one would have read that and thought that is what he meant.

But you did for reasons I really don't wish to dwell on, because that is your circus with him.

I "jumped" on that statement because it was a troll post and you know it. My point was fairly clear, and there for all to see. In other words, perhaps you should refrain from making comments such as this:

"I assume that Tiassa did not mean to imply that slavery is always racist. Certainly the American experience of slavery was racist, but historically there are plenty of examples of slavery in which race was neither a motivator nor was it advanced as a justification."​

When this thread is about CRT and the American perspective and what is currently happening in the US and elsewhere I might add, and then feign ignorance.

At no time did I "feign ignorance". Nor did you ask the question. You just assumed.

Again, let's look at what I actually asked. I had two questions (post #97). I wrote:

I would be interested to see some details about this. Are there certain prescribed texts or curricula that will mandate this teaching?
....
None of these ["wannabe inbetweeners" or "sniveling notas"] are named in Tiassa's post, although they "stand out" somehow. Who are they?
I expressed ignorance about two things: (1) the details of the Florida middle-school curriculum, and (2) who, exactly, Tiassa might be name-calling and making insinuations about in his post?

These matters of ignorance were not feigned. This is how asking questions works, Bells. The person asking the question desires information that he or she does not currently possess (he or she is "ignorant" about the particular answers, if you insist). Then, the way a polite conversation goes is that somebody responds and says something like "Thanks for your question. Here's some information about the Florida curriculum...." or "Thanks for asking. The sniveling notas I was attempting to insult in my post are X, Y and Z."

What usually doesn't happen is for an explosive response along the lines of "how dare you post that! You should stay away from this topic and never post about it again!"

Oh? You didn't feign ignorance? Is this you?

I would be interested to see some details about this. Are there certain prescribed texts or curricula that will mandate this teaching?

This has been in the news everywhere. You'd basically be living with your head in the sand if you weren't aware of what was happening in Florida.

Proof was provided and it wasn't enough.

People get defensive when you attack them, Bells. It's not that mysterious.

It's particularly baffling when you are attacked by somebody who you would assume would be willing to take your good faith as a given in a discussion.

I am not attacking you James. I am questioning why you chose to post what you posted.

Which comments did I make that were "overly spurious"? What raised your eyebrows? My observation that Tiassa's words could possibly be read in two ways seems to bother you immensely. Why?

Because no one with functioning brain cells would have read his comment and made that comment. Absolutely no one, given the context and subject matter of this thread. So we are left with you either did not know or understand what was being discussed or you decided to die on that hill because you thought you were scoring a point and then decided to back pedal. Either way, was pretty poor form.

I'm not convinced the laws are well reported on, in general. There are a lot of people with various political agendas loudly clamoring for media attention who seem to be selectively talking about the laws. There is a lot of meta-commentary on the laws. But very few, if any, deep-dives into what the laws actually say, what they would prohibit or mandate in practice etc.

Now I could be wrong about this. Maybe there are some highly articulate and well-informed analyses, of which I am currently ignorant. (This would not be "feigned ignorance", note.) Hence, I had the temerity to ask the question and to suggest that, you know, maybe it would be nice to delve into some actual details a bit. But apparently, I'm not supposed to ask those sorts of questions, or I'll be acccused of feigning ignorance or of wanting to die on a hill for my supposed radical opinions (which are, in fact, nowhere in evidence).

The reports are factual and there have been numerous interviews of DeSantis where he was loudly defending the laws themselves. I linked you the guidelines for educators and schools for how Sociology would be taught in schools - and it does not even cover racism anywhere. Given US history, doesn't this strike you as strange? These guidelines exist because they have to abide by the law that has literally banned CRT in classrooms.

Use your own critical thinking skills here, James. Why do you think schools and teachers are barred from discussing racism or teaching racism or having students consider how some laws, regulations and policies may have historically and currently impacted minorities negatively? Let's consider that "race" is a social construct. How does that affect your critical lens? Consider what teachers are saying about the laws in Florida and what they are directly experiencing?

 

[Bells]

Taking your points in order:

• At no time did I "complain" about somebody describing slavery in the US as being racist. On the contrary, I described it that way myself, explicitly.
• I have no idea what that "what-about-ism" might be, or why it's a problem for you.
• I have nowhere feigned ignorance.
• There is nothing wrong with my asking Tiassa a question as to relevance. You may, from time to time, have noticed that his posts tend to be discursive, to say the least.

If only you had actually asked a question "as to relevance". We would not be having this conversation. Your question was not even related to this thread's topic and it was, by any definition either a troll post or one based on absolute ignorance. But you weren't feigning ignorance. Sooo.. Where does that leave us?

I ask, because who in their right mind, in a discussion about CRT and in particular, how Florida has enacted laws that directly impact education and particularly, is trying to paint positives of slavery, would enter that discussion and have a bit of a wobbly that someone was painting slavery as always being racist...? Make this make sense for me James.

"Anti-woke" is a buzzword, as is the "Stop Woke Act". A lot of people speak as if this Act has banned the teaching and discussion of racism, gender and more in schools. You speak of it that way. However, so far I'm not convinced that's what it does. I would like to know more about what the law actually says, like I said.

I very much doubt that the term "woke" appears anywhere in the legislation. It seems like it is a sort of banner for a certain political position to rally behind. (Actually, I think that, these days, the original meaning of the term itself has been largely subverted by the hard Right.)

Also, I would be interested to know what motivated this particular Act. What perceived harms are the Florida legislature trying to address with this law? What are the advertised benefits of the Act?

I don't know James. Have a think about why a Governor who had imposed laws to prevent black people from voting, has banned healthcare when it pertains to Trans kids in particular, has banned teachers from discussing racism or the impact of racism on society... What do you think motivated "this particular Act"?

You might want to let DeSantis know this then... https://www.flgov.com/2021/12/15/go...ical-race-theory-in-schools-and-corporations/

The law is also known as the Individual Freedom Act and Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act (ie Stop WOKE Act)...

Why are you asking what are the advertised benefits of the Act? I thought you already know this stuff? What do you think the benefits of this Act would be? Who would benefit? What groups in society would benefit if American history, LGBTQIA+ rights, African American history and rights are barred? Have a think about it.

The curriculum includes a lot of teaching about slavery, as far as I can see. It seems to cover the history of slavery, the experiences of slaves, particulars about how the "system" of slavery was administered, how and why slavery was abolished in the United States, etc.

Is there nothing in the Florida curriculum about the social impacts of slavery, or the long-term disadvantages to African Americans that sprang out of it? Is the teaching of these things actually banned explicitly?

How can they teach about slavery in the US without addressing racism? How can they teach about the Jim Crow Laws without addressing racism?

Because I don't know if you're aware, but when it comes to these subjects, "racism" is a pretty giant pink elephant in the room. I'll put it to you this way, in a manner that might make it make sense for you. Can you teach physics without mathematics?

I'll address the rest later.

 

[Tiassa]

The One Thing You Shouldn't Be Is Surprised

There is no point in throwing our hands up and pretending shock. This is how it's gone for decades. Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent↱ explains:

Kim Reynolds, Iowa's Republican governor, signed a law in May that, among other provisions, requires schools to remove books that depict a "sex act." That statutory phrase has now helped unleash a frenzy of book-banning across the state, one that illustrates a core truth about these types of censorship directives.

Their vagueness is the point.

When GOP-controlled state legislatures escalated the passage of laws in 2022 and 2023 restricting school materials addressing sex, gender and race, critics warned that their hazy drafting would prod educators to err on the side of censorship. Uncertain whether books or classroom discussions might run afoul of their state's law, education officials might decide nixing them would be the "safer" option.

What's happening in Iowa right now thoroughly vindicates those fears.​

In Iowa City, the district released a list of sixty-eight titles to be removed in order to comply with the law, including Joyce's Ulysses, Picoult's Nineteen Minutes, and Morrison's The Bluest Eye; perhaps most symbolically fitting, Margaret Atwood's dystopian novel, The Handmaid's Tale, is on the list.

Other schools have banned Orwell's 1984, Huxley's Brave New World, Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five, and even Groom's Forrest Gump.

The Iowa law requires K-12 schools to remove materials that depict any one of a series of sex acts that include intercourse and other types of genital contact. The law also bans instruction on gender identity or sexual orientation before seventh grade ....

.... To be clear, what's happening here is not necessarily the fault of the districts themselves. Their administrators have worked for months to determine which books must be removed to comply with the law. They've asked the state for guidance, but it has mostly not been forthcoming — leaving them in the tough position of navigating the law on their own.

That has led districts to flag books with depictions of "sex acts" that aren't lascivious or lewd and often aren't important parts of their content, said Margaret Buckton, a lobbyist for the Rural School Advocates of Iowa. As Buckton told me, "fear" is "motivating districts to interpret even vague descriptions of a 'sex act' that aren't pornographic as meeting this definition."​

Nor is it just in Iowa; Morrison is banned in Spotsylvania County, Virginia, schools; Orwell and Atwood have been pulled from schools in Missouri. Children's publisher Scholastic is now creating lists for schools, in order to help school organizers comply with censorship laws in places like Iowa and Missouri. However, the list "also includes uncontroversial books that merely display tolerance for LGBTQ+ people or tell the life story of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson", Sargent notes, suggesting, "Putting such books in that cordoned-off category could risk making them more likely to be excluded from fairs." And, yes, that is what is happening.

Just as critics predicted, all this vagueness and uncertainty is actively encouraging local education officials to sweep ever more broadly, undertaking more and more book removals in a kind of ever-expanding vortex. In this, one might argue, those laws are functioning exactly as intended.​

CRT, War On Woke, "Cancel Culture", the overlap is obvious. Insofar as "critics predicted", they had a pretty solid historical record to work with, and neither such predictions nor fulfillments are new. This is where they were going eight years ago, when backing Trump; it's where they were going fifteen years ago, when bawling about Obama; it's where they were going twenty years ago, when justifying Freedom Fries and the Iraqi Bush War; it's where they were going thirty years ago, forty, fifty, sixty, seventy years ago: homosexuals, women, black people, women, communists.

Even in the nigh on quarter-century of our own Sciforums community, there have been those we are expected to believe cannot discern the difference. More than simplistic suggestions of hypocrisy↗, the functional point is so clearly observable↗ that the question becomes unavoidable. Censorship as an assertion of free speech is a pretty straightforward contrast; perhaps the answer is that it's not so much a question of who can't see it, but, rather, who would prefer to pretend they don't. Because American conservatives have been telling us for years, generations, even↗. And, sure, for many of the inbetweeners, maybe it was some sort of accident, because life is a learning experience, and all, but what really would be helpful is if they could tell us what they thought the right-wingers were doing that whole time.

And who knows, maybe the excuses really are that much worse than just losing shit and complaining about the question.
____________________

Notes:

Sargent, Greg. "How the 'sex act' has become a potent weapon for book banners in Iowa". The Washington Post. 19 October 2023. WashingtonPost.com. 19 October 2023. https://bit.ly/3S5cN5S

Spoiler

 

[Tiassa]

The Enduring Values of Ohio Conservatives

They keep trying.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine on Friday signed into law a massive higher education overhaul to ban diversity efforts, regulate classroom discussion, and prohibit faculty strikes, among other things. The law will take effect in 90 days.

S.B. 1 will set rules around classroom discussion, create post-tenure reviews, put diversity scholarships at risk, create a retrenchment provision that block unions from negotiating on tenure, shorten university board of trustees terms from nine years down to six years, and require students take an American history course, among other things.

For classroom discussion, the bill will set rules around topics involving "controversial beliefs" such as climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion. S.B. 1 would only affect Ohio's public universities.

(Henry↱)​

The conservative War Against CRT, Woke, and DEI extends its reach to affirm an enduring fear of "controversial beliefs" running throughout history in general, but, more particularly to the present, maybe sixty-five or seventy years old, if not a hundred sixty, or even two hundred forty. This perception of vulnerability precedes the Republic. It's a durable value among Republican voters, even an asserted heritage.

Additionally, take note, this was SB 1. It does nothing toward the price of eggs, or inflation in general. It won't attract jobs or new investment to Ohio, and might actually discourage and dampen economic growth. Make a list of of other issues, other things voters might be seeking in Republican governance. This was Senate Bill 1. This was the first priority of the Republican majority in the Ohio State Senate.

This is #WhatTheyVotedFor. This is what is important to them.
____________________

Notes:

Henry, Megan. "Ohio Gov. DeWine signs higher ed bill regulating classroom discussion and banning diversity efforts". Ohio Capital Journal. 28 March 2025. OhioCapitalJournal.com. 30 March 2025. https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/brie...oom-discussion-and-banning-diversity-efforts/

 

[Tiassa]

crossover x update ("OUT OF CONTROL")

… belief that "teaching anything that is true is (not) necessarily a bad thing" was a rather odd thing to say about a Florida curriculum which included the teaching that slaves learned valuable job skills ....

There is a joke people sometimes do, or, rather, overuse, that goes, approximately, "That aged well." It is, of course, sarcasm; whatever they are referring to did not age well. The flipside of this is one of those things that either doesn't come up much, or seems politically biased¹, but runs, approximately, "Life will provide examples." Like this. What, four months or so? And, here we are.

Or, as Brian Tyler Cohen↱ explained:

Trump just announced that he will be going after all Smithsonian museums that teach “how bad Slavery was,” calling it “WOKE.”​

Trump's actual complaint is that, "The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how terrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been", so, yeah, Cohen's summary works well enough.

Consider that it's something Nina Turner↱ and Rick Wilson↱ can agree on; television writer Brian Behar takes↱ a few↱ tries↱ at wrapping his head around it: "I guess I'm woefully naive, but I was convinced, that by 2025, Nazis and Slavery were two things we could all agree were awful"; "Anyone who thinks that learning about the evils of slavery is 'too negative' is either a racist, a dumbfuck, or most likely, a racist dumbfuck"; "Until today, I had no idea that hating slavery made me woke or controversial".

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA02)↱ explains, "If Trump thinks slavery wasn't bad, he clearly needs to spend more time in a museum. Anyone who thinks there's ANYTHING GOOD about enslaving human beings has no business running ANY country". Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA14)↱ takes it a step further: "Trump supports slavery. Prove me wrong." Former congressman and former Republican Joe Walsh simply reminds, as a mantra, "Slavery was bad", and longtime GOP hand Jeff Timmer↱ inquires, "Dear GOP Pals, Did you think your lives would be reduced to cheering for shit like this?"

Analyst Alex Cole↱ makes a certain point, "Imagine being so fragile that teaching slavery makes you feel attacked", and if it's not exactly new in the world, it's not really expected at the White House valence of American discourse, but more of a social media or discussion↗ board↗ kind of thing; maybe a career barfly or crazy↗ uncle↗ level of thinking.

"Mind you," Democrats↱ remind, "a week ago, they partnered with PragerU, who said that slavery was 'no big deal' and 'better than being killed'"; California Governor Gavin Newsom↱ recalls, "Trump's GOP has already called slavery a 'workforce development program'", and somehow we've come 'round the circle.
____________________

Notes:

¹ To wit, per Colbert, that reality has a well-known liberal bias.​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1957886194257154354

 

[parmalee]

Or, as Brian Tyler Cohen↱ explained:

Trump just announced that he will be going after all Smithsonian museums that teach “how bad Slavery was,” calling it “WOKE.”​

Trump's actual complaint is that, "The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how terrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been", so, yeah, Cohen's summary works well enough.

That bit at the end there--"how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been"--is rather curious. It's like he's trying to either provide a rationale for abuse, or he's trying to somehow subvert the narrative into saying... well, I don't even know. Museums, history books, whatever don't highlight what has not been accomplished, nor do they even imply any such thing--like, well, they coulda done this or that. That's just weird. The only way such a thing could be implied is perhaps by absence--but is he suggesting that the "downtrodden" are somehow underrepresented in the museum? That would be a rather "woke" thing to say, wouldn't it?

He elaborates in the next line: "Nothing about Success. Nothing about Brightness. Nothing about the Future." Well, as for the Future--it's not that kind of museum, and I'm not eve sure that it would be a museum if it were about the future. Jesus, what a fucking idiot. Brightness is a little vague. As for Success, well, I haven't been to the Smithsonian in a very long time, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that there ain't nothing there which emphasizes successes and accomplishments. Even without having been in a while, I can say almost certainly that the Air and Space Museum, the Postal Museum, and the several which are dedicated specifically to various arts in America emphasize accomplishments--it's just kind of a no-brainer. So is he saying that the museums devoted to African-American art, Native American art, etc. don't... what? What is it they don't do, emphasize the accomplishments of white people--are they the "downtrodden"? I mean, the only way to make sense out of what he's saying here, for it to not be a "woke" thing to say, is for the "downtrodden" to be white people, right?

 

[Tiassa]

… but is he suggesting that the "downtrodden" are somehow underrepresented in the museum? That would be a rather "woke" thing to say, wouldn't it?

I read it as an insult against minorities: The downtrodden aren't plucky and resourceful enough in this telling. Where we see historical cycles inflicted and enforced, he sees tales about poor people who aren't trying hard enough. What makes the line stand out, I suppose, is that it reminds so clearly that he's not writing these screeds himself. Well, that and its petulance.

Consider a line from Carol Anderson: "The trigger for white rage, inevitably, is black advancement. It is not the mere presence of black people that is the problem; rather, it is blackness with ambition, with drive, with purpose, with aspirations, and with demands for full and equal citizenship." Similarly, there is a white supremacist attitude that looks past slavery, Jim Crow, and even the literal destruction of Black wealth such as the Tulsa Massacre, and thinks the real problem is that the Negroes aren't bootstrapping enough; i.e., the problem isn't how those minorities are treated, but that they haven't accomplished enough to properly earn respect. It's a way of justifying hatred and bigotry.
____________________

Notes:

Anderson, Carol. White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide. 2016. New York & London: Bloomsbury, 2017.

 

[Tiassa]

Update: The "Unaccomplished" "Downtrodden"

That bit at the end there--"how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been"--is rather curious. It's like he's trying to either provide a rationale for abuse, or he's trying to somehow subvert the narrative ....

Congresswoman Sarah McBride (D-DE)↱ observes:

Let me get this straight:

They're censoring exhibits about slavery because they supposedly don't emphasize progress made for Black Americans while they also censor government websites that celebrate the progress of trailblazing Black Americans because they deem that "woke?"​

Four years ago↑ it was easy enough to suggest that conservatives had transformed "CRT" into a phrase referring to anything about race unflattering to white people, and this time later we can see the war against woke as being about not so much what is unflattering to white people, as such, but what makes white supremacists uncomfortable. Just like anti-feminism isn't about what flatters men or not, but, rather, what makes certain men uncomfortable. (As with CRT, woke "transcends a Black/white racial binary", and generally speaking seeks to transcend such dualistic constraints.)

It actually kind of reminds of other conservative routines, like the time there weren't enough men putting on dresses to harass women in restrooms to fulfill the anti-trans complaint, so the American Family Association↱ dispatched advocates to fill in the gap. In that case, conservatives tried to manufacture evidence they didn't have. In the present, Republicans hope to suppress the discourse, evidence, and history that discomfits or inconveniences them.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1958943011611578666