• Welcome, Guest. Please login.

Just how racist is Critical Race Theory?

Started by Solar, June 29, 2021, 12:14:28 AM

Previous topic - Next topic


Just replace White, with Black, Asian, Latino etc, and see for yourself.
I put this here because we are at war with the Marxist left, and this is just one of the fronts we're fighting on.

It's easier to read it at the link.

Critical Race TheoryANTONIO TOMAS DE LA GARZACalifornia State University, San Marcos, USAKENT A. ONOUniversity of Utah, USACritical race theory (CRT) is an intellectual movement that seeks to understand howwhite supremacy as a legal, cultural, and political condition is reproduced and main-tained, primarily in the US context. While CRT is part of a much longer research tra-dition investigating race and racism, which includes such key gures as W. E. B. DuBois, Frantz Fanon, Angela Davis, Audre Lorde, Gloria Anzaldúa, Cherríe Moraga, andmany more, CRT distinguishes itself as an approach that originated within legal stud-ies (in part building from and responding to critical legal studies); aims to be a vehiclefor social and political change; has been adopted interdisciplinarily across many elds,including perhaps most notably education; and, in certain contexts, has come to be theumbrella term for studies of race and racism generally.CRT originated as an extension and critique of critical legal studies (CLS). It was alsoan outgrowth of Marxist critical theory that challenged the rationality, impartiality, andpurpose of the legal system. According to the tenets of both CRT and CLS, the legalsystem is a political and ideological institution that, in part, rationalizes and justiesthe existence of the state. e legal system also requires mastery of an arcane and inten-tionally inaccessible vocabulary and a set of knowledge and power processes that limitordinary people's access to it. e arbiters of law pretend to rely on reason but actuallyrely on subjective, politically motivated, culturally biased, and quasi-religious rationalefor making and enforcing their decisions. CRT maintains the critique of legalistic think-ing found in critical legal studies, but then adds a framework for understanding whitesupremacy as an immutable fact of a neocolonial state, as well as a praxis for chang-ing it. What separates CRT from other forms of racial critique is that, "Unlike most ofthe earlier genres of race scholarship, critical race scholarship does not treat race as anindependent variable; rather, it regards race as a site of struggle" (Orbe & Allen, 2008,p. 209).For example, in Racial Realism Derrick Bell (1991) argues that people of color oughtto abandon the ideal of equality as it is impossible to attain in the United States. Instead,people of color should seek to confront their victimizers and recognize that the ghtitself is "a manifestation of our humanity which survives and grows stronger throughresistance to oppression, even if that oppression is never overcome" (Bell, 1991, p. 378).Even though CRT scholars recognize race as central, they acknowledge that multipleforms of power and oppression are capable of operating simultaneously and in dier-ent registers (Delgado Bernal, 2002); hence, they support intersectional critique. Class,e International Encyclopedia of Communication eory and Philosophy.Klaus Bruhn Jensen and Robert T. Craig (Editors-in-Chief), Jeerson D. Pooley and Eric W. Rothenbuhler (Associate Editors).©2016JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.Published2016byJohnWiley&Sons,Inc.DOI: 10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect260
2CRITICAL RACE THEORYgender, sexuality, colonization, ability, and other forms of identity and marginalizationare all relationships of power that are mutually manifest and that intersect with race andoperate synergistically.ough CRT is rooted in CLS scholarship, CRT broke with CLS, in part becauseof a failure on the part of many CLS scholars to recognize the centrality of race tolaw. us, CRT can be thought of as both an outgrowth and a departure from CLS,as CRT scholars sought to move the conversation about racism from the margin to thecenter (Grin, 2010). Early architects of CRT include Alan D. Freeman and DerrickBell (Bell, 1976; Freeman, 1977). Both were legal scholars frustrated with the glacialsocial progress relating to race following the 1950s–1970s civil rights movement andthe inability of the legal system to recognize and keep people of color safe from racistdiscrimination. Rather than continue to place their faith in reform through the legalsystem, CRT's founders began to use their scholarly work as a form of activism.CRT's founders sought to change the structures of law, culture, and education byusing legal scholarship to produce narratives that contested aspects of the "commonsense" of American jurisprudence. us, from the perspective of the CRT scholar,attempts to bring about racial equality through the legal system were destined to failbecause the legal system was the primary, structural, and disciplinary mechanism formaintaining a white supremacist racial order. However, CRT scholars also believedthat it would be possible to change the function of the legal system by producinglegal scholarship that undermined white supremacy's hold on juridical thought. Bychanging the cases studied, as well as the way they were studied, CRT producedscholarly precedents.As a project, CRT assumes that the production, dissemination, and evaluationof knowledge is fundamentally political and, as such, CRT researchers challengeobjectivity, neutrality, and scholarly authority and the way these objectives may be usedto distance and separate researchers from material life. us, CRT scholars "expressskepticism toward dominant legal claims of neutrality, objectivity, colorblindness andmeritocracy" (Matsuda, Lawrence, Delgado, & Crenshaw, 1993, p. 6). e primaryreason CRT is important to the eld of communication is that it relies on "rhetoricalideas as both its ideological base and methodology. Critical race theorists arguethat speech acts cause racism and that solutions to problems resulting from racismrequire the use of language to reshape reality" (Olmsted, 1998, p. 324). As such,communication research grounded in, and conversant with, CRT is as much aninvestigation of the discursive practices that produce and reproduce the racial orderas it is a rhetorical intervention against racism. Like many theories generated outsidethe eld of communication and then imported into it, CRT has been taken up withincommunication long aer it became popular within legal studies. Nevertheless, CRTremains highly signicant to the eld of communication, and its relevance can be seenin recent work published in the eld, especially work that explores how communi-cation practices can intervene against racial discrimination (Grin, 2010; Holling,2014).Another aspect to CRT is its emphasis on the real-world eects of race and racism.So, while CRT explicitly challenges racist discourse, it is also crucially aware of the wayrace and racism aect the bodies, identities, and experiences of people of color. us,
CRITICAL RACE THEORY 3it explains how racism, as a social condition, goes well beyond individual, intentionalracist acts and must be understood at institutional, social, economic, political, and his-torical levels. Specically, work building out of CRT has studied such phenomena as"racial microagressions"—especially the cumulative eects of quotidian experienceswith racism in everyday life (De La Garza, 2015). Moreover, CRT scholarship scru-tinizes the production and maintenance of white supremacy as a normative, taken-for-granted (and hence naturalized), and "legitimate" regulatory social regime. Despiteextant research confronting white supremacy as a political and discursive condition,voices in the eld of communication have called for increased attention to racial cri-tique because "the ideology of Whiteness will remain dominantly depoliticized unlessmore of such scholarship is acknowledged, and we recognize the historically embeddedroots of structural racism" (Anguiano & Castañeda, 2014, p. 110). As such, scholarsin communication, in particular, have incorporated investigations of whiteness withinintercultural, organizational, rhetorical, health, environmental, and interpersonal com-munication. Scholarship that relies on CRT moves beyond the discrete interrogation oftexts and artifacts and situates communication practices within a broader context ofwhite supremacy as the normative mode of political and social organization. is worknot only draws attention to whiteness and how it operates but is also a praxeologicalintervention itself.Tenets of CRTDespite the interdisciplinary uptake of CRT throughout the social sciences andhumanities, there remains a relatively well-established and agreed-upon set of tenetsfor guiding CRT scholarship. erst tenet of CRT may seem an obvious one, butis nevertheless central to the critical and scholarly project of CRT: Race still matters(Orbe & Allen, 2008). Viewing race as a central component of scholarship is one ofthe primary hallmarks of CRT work. Despite notions of a "postracial" America, CRTscholars maintain that white supremacy is a constitutive feature of US life (Olson, 2004;Ono, 2010). Central to CRT work in the eld of communication is critical whitenessstudies. Such studies make explicit how white supremacy organizes the contextsand content of communication between people of color and mainstream ideologicalapparatus such as the media, the religious and educational systems. is work exposesthe power, complexity, and normativity of whiteness discursively and demonstratesthe inuence of whiteness on people and the way whiteness is reproduced as a culturalcenter.e second tenet of CRT is the centrality of narrative and storytelling as a method ofanalysis. CRT critiques law and legal studies for not having incorporated people of colorinto scholarship, as well as for not having changed, structurally, to adapt to perspec-tives and theories emerging as a result of changes such scholarship requires. One wayCRT scholars have sought to make such changes is by producing narratives by peopleof color, akin to testimonios (see below), that inform legal study. ese "counterstories"disrupt normative cultural and personal narratives that reify the marginalization of peo-ple of color. From the perspective of CRT scholarship, engines of knowledge production
4CRITICAL RACE THEORYare oen deployed to invalidate or refute people of color's individual experiences withracism. Giving voice to people's stories is also a way to validate "experiential knowledge,"or the lived experience of people of color, and to push back against institutional invest-ments in maintaining a colorblind facade (Bonilla-Silva, 2006). Critics of CRT havesuggested that these narratives can and do fall into the trap of essentialism; however, thetheory's adherents argue that knowing is a much more complicated process than theo-rizing, and that counterstory is one of very few methods that nd value in the particularand individual experiences of people of color.e third tenet of CRT entails a critique of liberalism. Additionally, liberalism is asso-ciated not with progressivism, but with incrementalism. Hence, CRT aims for moreradical institutional changes than reformist ones. e long march is too long. It is alsoimpractical in the face of structural racism and cultural ethnocentrism. One of the rea-sons for this is that liberalism places too much faith on reform and the legislation ofhuman rights. ese ideas tend to be rejected by CRT scholars because they ignorethe depths of structural racism that people of color face. e failures of the civil rightsmovement have led many CRT scholars to reject piecemeal or gradual reform in favorof more radical and revolutionary approaches.e fourth tenet of CRT is a commitment to social justice. Early CRT work beganas a critique of the legal institution and juridical modes of thought. CRT scholarshipis oen referred to as a political and intellectual movement; as such, many CRT theo-rists position themselves in opposition to dominant ideological and discursive frames.eeld of communication adds to this movement through racial critique of media(Yosso, 2002), investigations into social and political movements (Anguiano, Milstein,De Larkin, Chen, & Sandoval, 2012), institutions, and a commitment to the voices ofthe marginalized (Holling, 2014).Ah tenet of CRT research is an acknowledgment of the importance of interdis-ciplinarity. CRT scholars recognize that there is a historical relationship between theproduction of scholarly research and the maintenance of white supremacy. From itsinception to the present, CRT research takes up a marginalized position in academicjournals as much by necessity as design. us, CRT scholars have learned to move acrossdisciplinary boundaries in order to nd opportunities to connect with other relevantbodies of literature and to share their scholarship with others. e move to interdis-ciplinarity is instrumental to the broad dissemination and uptake of CRT scholarshipacross academic disciplines, and contributes to CRT's continued relevance as a theoret-ical paradigm.CRT methodologyIn addition to counterstories being a theoretical contribution of CRT, they are also amethodology of sorts that challenges discrimination and works toward social justiceby "talking back" to rationalist and social-scientic research that supports racializedand marginalizing notions about people of color. Counterstories may be narrativesconstructed using empirical evidence, they may be amalgamations of many people'spersonal experience (oen called composite stores), or they may even be completel
Official Trump Cult Member