So I apologise if you found my post aggressive in a bad sense. This is my first time on Epiphanies and I'm probably not tuned into the need to remove any possible aggression.
The last thing we need is white people deciding what is and isn't racist.
What a bizarre notion! It sounds like you are insisting that white people are necessarily biased (undoubtedly true) while other races are blissfully free of bias (the bizarre part.) One of the pernicious aspects of being part of a disadvantaged group is that it provides a ready-made excuse for all one's shortcomings -- I wasn't hired because I'm (fill in the blank); I am not loved because you are prejudiced against (___); etc. While the advantaged group members will tend to attribute their successes to personal virtue, the disadvantaged group has the mirror image limitation. One important mechanism for growth is to allow ourselves to absorb and evaluate the critique of the other. Or so ISTM.
So I'd like to highlight the bit of CRT which I am most resistant to believing, possibly more because I don't want to than because I can disprove it. And that is the idea that racism is permanent and will not be overcome by the typical liberal approach of bit by bit working within the system to change the system.
I assume nobody is simply saying that perfection is unachievable, since that is banal. What I take it to mean is that it's not worth continuing to work within the existing system to improve it by legal/constitutional means because that will not get to an acceptable state. Not that nothing at all can be achieved (also banal) but that to get to where there is a "good-enough" level of racial justice, the current approach will not work.
If I am wrong is thinking that this is a belief of CRTheories then I'm glad but surprised. But that's happened before. I don't want it to be true because I don't see what alternative has a better chance of working.
What I take it to mean is that it's not worth continuing to work within the existing system to improve it by legal/constitutional means because that will not get to an acceptable state. Not that nothing at all can be achieved (also banal) but that to get to where there is a "good-enough" level of racial justice, the current approach will not work.
What do you mean by the 'current approach', what do you mean by 'work' and what do you believe has been happening for the last few decades?
And back to CRT ... It's not really for white people to decide if it's the right tool to tackle racism is it?!
Well plenty of White people seem to have decided it's the right tool, despite the existence of dissenting Black voices such as Tony Sewell, Kemi Badenoch or John McWhorter.
Communities always dissent as @Tubbs says above. I think it's worth looking at the balance of opinion, and wondering why mainstream media has sought to elevate the voices it has (Sewell studied literature, McWhorter is a linguist and Badenoch worked in IT).
I think White people have the choice of either not getting involved at all because we don't have the standing to make a comment (and thus effectively refusing to advocate either for or against CRT approaches), or else evaluating that one set of Black voices provides more convincing evidence than the other - which isn't IMV a problem as long as we are actually listening to those voices rather than just amplifying whichever group confirms our preconceptions, but does ultimately mean that White people end up sitting in judgement over Black people's accounts of racism.
This seems premised on the common belief among white people that "race" is something other people have.
And back to CRT ... It's not really for white people to decide if it's the right tool to tackle racism is it?!
Well plenty of White people seem to have decided it's the right tool, despite the existence of dissenting Black voices such as Tony Sewell, Kemi Badenoch or John McWhorter.
I think White people have the choice of either not getting involved at all because we don't have the standing to make a comment (and thus effectively refusing to advocate either for or against CRT approaches), or else evaluating that one set of Black voices provides more convincing evidence than the other - which isn't IMV a problem as long as we are actually listening to those voices rather than just amplifying whichever group confirms our preconceptions, but does ultimately mean that White people end up sitting in judgement over Black people's accounts of racism.
Communities will always disagree within themselves about the best way forward. A person stating an opinion is just that. They're not representing their community, just themselves.
Listening to those voices without speaking for them seems the way to go.
So White voices have no standing to pontificate on CRT, and any individual Black voice is simply representing an individual not a community, so there is no such thing as an authoritative voice on CRT. And we shouldn't require the oppressed to do the work of resisting their oppression, but at the same time, we should keep quiet and not speak for them.
That's probably an unfair characterisation of what you're saying, but I'm not sure what you are saying.
The last thing we need is white people deciding what is and isn't racist.
I wasn't aware that I'd attempted to do that. The point of my question wasn't about whether a particular inequity is or isn't racist, but about whether a direct accusation of racism would have better or worse results than simply calling out the inequity without attributing a cause to it. And that is not a question about experiences of racism but about the inside of White people's heads, which is something I do have some experience of.
I think White people have the choice of either not getting involved at all because we don't have the standing to make a comment (and thus effectively refusing to advocate either for or against CRT approaches), or else evaluating that one set of Black voices provides more convincing evidence than the other - which isn't IMV a problem as long as we are actually listening to those voices rather than just amplifying whichever group confirms our preconceptions, but does ultimately mean that White people end up sitting in judgement over Black people's accounts of racism.
This seems premised on the common belief among white people that "race" is something other people have.
And back to CRT ... It's not really for white people to decide if it's the right tool to tackle racism is it?!
Well plenty of White people seem to have decided it's the right tool, despite the existence of dissenting Black voices such as Tony Sewell, Kemi Badenoch or John McWhorter.
I think White people have the choice of either not getting involved at all because we don't have the standing to make a comment (and thus effectively refusing to advocate either for or against CRT approaches), or else evaluating that one set of Black voices provides more convincing evidence than the other - which isn't IMV a problem as long as we are actually listening to those voices rather than just amplifying whichever group confirms our preconceptions, but does ultimately mean that White people end up sitting in judgement over Black people's accounts of racism.
Communities will always disagree within themselves about the best way forward. A person stating an opinion is just that. They're not representing their community, just themselves.
Listening to those voices without speaking for them seems the way to go.
So White voices have no standing to pontificate on CRT, and any individual Black voice is simply representing an individual not a community, so there is no such thing as an authoritative voice on CRT. And we shouldn't require the oppressed to do the work of resisting their oppression, but at the same time, we should keep quiet and not speak for them.
That's probably an unfair characterisation of what you're saying, but I'm not sure what you are saying.
The last thing we need is white people deciding what is and isn't racist.
I wasn't aware that I'd attempted to do that. The point of my question wasn't about whether a particular inequity is or isn't racist, but about whether a direct accusation of racism would have better or worse results than simply calling out the inequity without attributing a cause to it. And that is not a question about experiences of racism but about the inside of White people's heads, which is something I do have some experience of.
The answer is that it probably depends. In situations where the inequality is a directly caused by ~ism resolving it will involve acknowledging it exists. You're unlikely to solve one without addressing the other.
Wondering whether a direct accusation of racism would have better or worse results doesn't seem to give enough weight to the experiences of those on the receiving end of it. It seems more about protecting the feelings of the white person.
I'm not sure this will help but ... I've got no lived experience of racism either so when a black person tells me something is racist, I assume they're right. I'm also grateful that they've trusted me enough to say that. A black person calling out a white person isn't without risk.
CRT has roots in academia and law and there are authoritative voices in the black community who've spoken in support of it. As @chrisstiles points out, they're not the ones who get airtime. The ones who get airtime are the ones who dismiss it. Because they're the ones telling the powers that be what they want to hear.
What I'm also trying to point out is that when issues related to minority groups are discussed, individuals within that group are treated as "the voice of their community". But no one assumes that one man or one white person speaks for all of them.
The last thing we need is white people deciding what is and isn't racist.
What a bizarre notion! It sounds like you are insisting that white people are necessarily biased (undoubtedly true) while other races are blissfully free of bias (the bizarre part.) One of the pernicious aspects of being part of a disadvantaged group is that it provides a ready-made excuse for all one's shortcomings -- I wasn't hired because I'm (fill in the blank); I am not loved because you are prejudiced against (___); etc. While the advantaged group members will tend to attribute their successes to personal virtue, the disadvantaged group has the mirror image limitation. One important mechanism for growth is to allow ourselves to absorb and evaluate the critique of the other. Or so ISTM.
Like I said, I've got no lived experience of what it's like to be on the receiving end of racism. But if you want a master class in my lived experience of sexism, I've free until Bake Off starts ...
Maybe more that the advantaged group tends assume life's good things are theirs by right. And then act out when they find they aren't. So X only gets hired for the top job because they fill a quota. Rather than because they were truly the best candidate.
The last thing we need is white people deciding what is and isn't racist.
What a bizarre notion! It sounds like you are insisting that white people are necessarily biased (undoubtedly true) while other races are blissfully free of bias (the bizarre part.) One of the pernicious aspects of being part of a disadvantaged group is that it provides a ready-made excuse for all one's shortcomings -- I wasn't hired because I'm (fill in the blank); I am not loved because you are prejudiced against (___); etc. While the advantaged group members will tend to attribute their successes to personal virtue, the disadvantaged group has the mirror image limitation. One important mechanism for growth is to allow ourselves to absorb and evaluate the critique of the other. Or so ISTM.
@tclune, I think I might understand what you are actually saying, but this could read as a racist trope about minority groups not trying and then using excuses. Please try to consider how your statements may sound from other points of view.
The last thing we need is white people deciding what is and isn't racist.
What a bizarre notion! It sounds like you are insisting that white people are necessarily biased (undoubtedly true) while other races are blissfully free of bias (the bizarre part.) One of the pernicious aspects of being part of a disadvantaged group is that it provides a ready-made excuse for all one's shortcomings -- I wasn't hired because I'm (fill in the blank); I am not loved because you are prejudiced against (___); etc. While the advantaged group members will tend to attribute their successes to personal virtue, the disadvantaged group has the mirror image limitation. One important mechanism for growth is to allow ourselves to absorb and evaluate the critique of the other. Or so ISTM.
It feels like you are trying to argue for a symmetrical bias, when real world experience suggests it is asymmetric.
And back to CRT ... It's not really for white people to decide if it's the right tool to tackle racism is it?!
Well plenty of White people seem to have decided it's the right tool, despite the existence of dissenting Black voices such as Tony Sewell, Kemi Badenoch or John McWhorter.
I think White people have the choice of either not getting involved at all because we don't have the standing to make a comment (and thus effectively refusing to advocate either for or against CRT approaches), or else evaluating that one set of Black voices provides more convincing evidence than the other - which isn't IMV a problem as long as we are actually listening to those voices rather than just amplifying whichever group confirms our preconceptions, but does ultimately mean that White people end up sitting in judgement over Black people's accounts of racism.
Communities will always disagree within themselves about the best way forward. A person stating an opinion is just that. They're not representing their community, just themselves.
Listening to those voices without speaking for them seems the way to go.
So White voices have no standing to pontificate on CRT, and any individual Black voice is simply representing an individual not a community, so there is no such thing as an authoritative voice on CRT. And we shouldn't require the oppressed to do the work of resisting their oppression, but at the same time, we should keep quiet and not speak for them.
That's probably an unfair characterisation of what you're saying, but I'm not sure what you are saying.
The last thing we need is white people deciding what is and isn't racist.
I wasn't aware that I'd attempted to do that. The point of my question wasn't about whether a particular inequity is or isn't racist, but about whether a direct accusation of racism would have better or worse results than simply calling out the inequity without attributing a cause to it. And that is not a question about experiences of racism but about the inside of White people's heads, which is something I do have some experience of.
The answer is that it probably depends. In situations where the inequality is a directly caused by ~ism resolving it will involve acknowledging it exists. You're unlikely to solve one without addressing the other.
Wondering whether a direct accusation of racism would have better or worse results doesn't seem to give enough weight to the experiences of those on the receiving end of it. It seems more about protecting the feelings of the white person.
Firstly thanks for a response that is considerably more gracious than mine.
ISTM that if one is trying to change hearts and minds, then, on a purely pragmatic level, the feelings of the person whose heart and mind you want to change are relevant - that's why the PR and advertising industry exists, and why there's more to being a successful campaigner than just being right. Although ultimately I think I agree with 'it probably depends' as an answer to the actual question.
I'm not sure this will help but ... I've got no lived experience of racism either so when a black person tells me something is racist, I assume they're right. I'm also grateful that they've trusted me enough to say that. A black person calling out a white person isn't without risk.
CRT has roots in academia and law and there are authoritative voices in the black community who've spoken in support of it. As @chrisstiles points out, they're not the ones who get airtime. The ones who get airtime are the ones who dismiss it. Because they're the ones telling the powers that be what they want to hear.
What I'm also trying to point out is that when issues related to minority groups are discussed, individuals within that group are treated as "the voice of their community". But no one assumes that one man or one white person speaks for all of them.
Where I was coming from is that if an opinion on CRT is invalidated because it comes from a White person, that implies that the qualifying factor that makes a voice authoritative or not is the race to which you belong, and if Black* voices are saying different things, then there is no authoritative opinion at all. Now in practice I think @chrisstiles is right, but that is making academic credentials the key to authority - which in turn raises the possibility that a White sociologist could hold more authority than a Black software engineer.
Whether you need a Black person to tell you whether a particular act is racist or not also seems to fall under 'it depends'. Some things are pretty blatant, and some things can be hidden under plausible deniability.
* I feel I should acknowledge that I'm talking as though the only two possible categories of human being are Black and White, but saying 'White' and 'Non-White' seems problematic as well.
It feels like you are trying to argue for a symmetrical bias, when real world experience suggests it is asymmetric.
Mt sense is that some folks look at these things through political eyes and some through religious eyes. In political terms, my team is always more sinned against than sinning. In religious terms, I always have work to do to become more as God intends.
I'm not sure this will help but ... I've got no lived experience of racism either so when a black person tells me something is racist, I assume they're right. I'm also grateful that they've trusted me enough to say that. A black person calling out a white person isn't without risk.
CRT has roots in academia and law and there are authoritative voices in the black community who've spoken in support of it. As @chrisstiles points out, they're not the ones who get airtime. The ones who get airtime are the ones who dismiss it. Because they're the ones telling the powers that be what they want to hear.
What I'm also trying to point out is that when issues related to minority groups are discussed, individuals within that group are treated as "the voice of their community". But no one assumes that one man or one white person speaks for all of them.
Where I was coming from is that if an opinion on CRT is invalidated because it comes from a White person, that implies that the qualifying factor that makes a voice authoritative or not is the race to which you belong, and if Black* voices are saying different things, then there is no authoritative opinion at all. Now in practice I think @chrisstiles is right, but that is making academic credentials the key to authority - which in turn raises the possibility that a White sociologist could hold more authority than a Black software engineer.
I think ultimately there are very few shortcuts to carefully examining each side of the argument. I wouldn't necessarily make academic credentials on their own key to authority, but when considering an academic field it's very telling to me when the dissenting voices promoted as authentic by one side are ones that come from outside that discipline. Picking a dead horse comparison; it's similar to how the credentials of various Phds (who generally turned out to be chemists or engineers) were touted in ID/Creationist circles.
Academic and journalistic work tends to be very much at the mercy of funding which in turn depends on institutional structure, and that would lead me to expect that new insights into oppression would tend to come - at least initially - from among the community of the oppressed, because they would be more likely to have drive to question existing orthodoxies. It's not a perfect analog - but it's no surprise that the #MeToo movement sprung out initially from the work of two women.
An observation:
There a lot more people posting poorly-informed ideas based on "how things seem to them" than there is engagement with the personal identities actually informing CRT.
Would it be possible to ask that people actually read some source material before venturing opinions or asking to be educated by what precious few relevant-identity insights might manifest?
So I'd like to highlight the bit of CRT which I am most resistant to believing, possibly more because I don't want to than because I can disprove it. And that is the idea that racism is permanent and will not be overcome by the typical liberal approach of bit by bit working within the system to change the system.
I assume nobody is simply saying that perfection is unachievable, since that is banal. What I take it to mean is that it's not worth continuing to work within the existing system to improve it by legal/constitutional means because that will not get to an acceptable state. Not that nothing at all can be achieved (also banal) but that to get to where there is a "good-enough" level of racial justice, the current approach will not work.
I'm curious about where you got this idea. The foremost voices that I know of working on CRT in the US are legal scholars employed by prestigious law schools, so they're very much working within the system. CRT analyzes systems in order to see where they are racist with an eye to changing those systems. Some systems may have to be entirely replaced, some may need to be re-envisioned, some may need substantial change. But I don't see anyone working on CRT saying to burn everything down or for marginalized people to buy an island somewhere and not deal with everyone else at all.
Like I said, I've got no lived experience of what it's like to be on the receiving end of racism. But if you want a master class in my lived experience of sexism, I've free until Bake Off starts ...
My lived experience of sexism and of telling perfectly nice guys about it and watching their jaws drop because they had no idea is one reason why I believe Black people and other people of color when they tell me about racism.
Bell Hooks is a good source for learning about intersectionality
This. The writings of bell hooks and Audre Lorde in the 1980s laid the groundwork for later thinking about intersectional understandings.
From bell hooks' Killing Rage: Ending Racism:
"Since the notion that we should all forsake attachment to race and/or cultural identity and be “just humans” within the framework of white supremacy has usually meant that subordinate groups must surrender their identities, beliefs, values, and assimilate by adopting the values and beliefs of privileged-class whites."
Like I said, I've got no lived experience of what it's like to be on the receiving end of racism. But if you want a master class in my lived experience of sexism, I've free until Bake Off starts ...
My lived experience of sexism and of telling perfectly nice guys about it and watching their jaws drop because they had no idea is one reason why I believe Black people and other people of color when they tell me about racism.
Exactly. Where's the high five smiley when you need it?
Probably the biggest learning for white people in conversations about racism is that their's isn't the most important voice in the room. That said, it's not the job of those on the receiving end to educate those of us who aren't. We need to do that for ourselves. I found I'm no longer talking to white people about race really helpful as a starting point. Not got round to the book yet.
Well I though I got it from Derrick Bell having been primed by D A Horton.
However, I am approaching this without the same level of knowledge as some on this ship, and it has already been implied that people below a certain level of expertise should stay away from discussions on this board, and not use it as a means of self education.
Well it is true that I do come into that category.
Plus both here and on the thread about assisted dying, there has been a suggestion that I am insensitive, and when in discussions, I realise this is true. Hopefully not intentionally rude but probably just not thinking about other people's sensitivities, or sometimes plain weariness in going over the same ground again and again.
So I'll politely bow out of this thread. And I don't expect howls of protest!
My impression isn't that people are expected to have a level of knowledge to post in Epiphanies, but that we have to be aware of others' sensitivities as the subjects discussed on this board tend to mean that we should tread with care. And that is the whole point of putting them in Epiphanies.
I have told this story before. One of the more interesting courses I did with my last employer was group process theory. It was an experiential course in an inner London education service. Those taking part were a multicultural group. We were exposed to the experience of how to be in a group, what the other people in the group might be experiencing, what the other people in the group bring into the sessions, what that might mean to lead groups and how ensure that all the group gain from the process.
In one of the sessions race was brought up as a challenge to the group: how might group participants' experience of racism affect their engagement in a group? There were black and Asian men and women taking part, who talked of their experiences, the white women mainly processed this through their understanding of sexism, several of the white men were aware enough of racism to have considered the issues, one because this was the second time he'd attended this course. The one person in the group who got extremely angry and could not understand what was being discussed was one of the white middle aged men. If we hadn't been trying to help him understand, I suspect we'd have segued into intersectionality, because we did touch on that later with a younger Muslim man who people did not believe was Muslim - he looked Eastern European.
Other than hearing first hand accounts of racism in a group where we were supposed to listen and learn about people's experience, I also took away that unless people are aware of discrimination through experience, it is harder to understand quite how discrimination works.
Texan politician Matt Krause is now investigating 850 book titles in school libraries on racism and on sexuality. The new law there prevents CRT being taught in schools, but is so vague that parents are targeting schools and teachers over books that don't fit the category and teachers are confused over what they can teach. Teachers may even have to include pro views of the Holocaust if they teach lessons on that time period. A law that bans a race or gender (but not sexuality) being taught as superior to another sounds okay, but it is being used to prevent teaching of past and present racism. They are also looking into books that might make students feel uncomfortable! What would that leave if interpreted strictly? https://www.texastribune.org/2021/10/26/texas-school-books-race-sexuality/
One of the banned books is one I have read. Mikki Kendall's 'Hood Feminism: Notes from the Women White Feminism Forgot' which I would also recommend if you don't mind the chance of feeling uncomfortable.
It's been a long time since I graduated from high school, but dollars to doughnuts Critical Race Theory per se is not taught below the university level. Frederick Douglass and other foundational thinkers are taught, but as history and/or literature, not as CRT. Krause and his ilk are counting on people not knowing what CRT is, because it just sounds like something the far-right Republican base will instinctively oppose - "critical" is negative, "race" is playing the race card, and "theory" is unproven BS the coastal elites are shoving down their throats.
ISTM that if one is trying to change hearts and minds, . . .
What if one isn't trying to "change hearts and minds", just stop destructive and discriminatory actions? It's a distinct possibility that a lot of non-white people just want to go about their business without devoting their lives to the moral redemption of white folks.
Texan politician Matt Krause is now investigating 850 book titles in school libraries on racism and on sexuality. The new law there prevents CRT being taught in schools, but is so vague that parents are targeting schools and teachers over books that don't fit the category and teachers are confused over what they can teach.
I think it's more accurate to say that the Texas law is so vague any book more complex than Hop On Pop could plausibly "fit the category", which I've long suspected is the point of such laws.
The gubernatorial campaign in Virginia seems to be treading similar ground, with Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin using his closing ad to gripe about the use of Toni Morrison's Pulitzer Prize winning novel Beloved in AP English classes. For those who are unfamiliar with the American educational system, Advanced Placement (AP) classes are college-level courses that can be taken by college-bound high school students and will often be counted for college credit if the student does well enough on a test administered at the end. In other words students who decide to take such classes should expect to be confronted with difficult material. Cue concerned mother Laura Murphy:
"To me, mature references means slavery or the Holocaust," Murphy told The Washington Post in 2013. "I'm not thinking my kid is going to be reading a book with bestiality."
The book, based on a true story, tells the story of Sethe, a woman who, after escaping slavery, kills her eldest daughter to prevent her from being enslaved too. The book also depicts gang rape, bestiality, and other cruelties associated with slavery.
So "mature references means slavery or the Holocaust", just so long as you don't examine the actual brutality of slavery (or, presumably, the Holocaust). Seems about right for the funhouse mirror version of "critical race theory" Republican politicians are opposing.
The last thing we need is white people deciding what is and isn't racist.
What a bizarre notion! It sounds like you are insisting that white people are necessarily biased (undoubtedly true) while other races are blissfully free of bias (the bizarre part.)
Not really sure where you're going here. This may be obvious, but I'm going to say it, because it's an important point that some people seem to want to gloss over.
People who experience racism are more likely to notice racism than people who don't.
If you're not on the receiving end of racism, or some other kind of ism, it's easy for you to muddle your way through life not noticing the racism that your neighbours experience. You'd probably notice someone shouting offensive racial epithets in the street, but most of it isn't quite so blatant, and if it's not happening to you, then you might well not notice. It's not that you are biased but people of other races are not biased: it's that your experiences are structurally different. There is a bias in the experiences that you have.
I came across this on Twitter and it pretty well summarizes the "controversy" surrounding critical race theory.
This guy says Critical Race Theory is the most important issue in the Virginia Election. He also says he has no idea what Critical Race Theory is.
There's a short (38 seconds) video if you want to click through and see for yourself, but this seems like a good summary of those who are concerned about critical race theory. They don't know what it is, but they're sure they don't like it.
I came across this on Twitter and it pretty well summarizes the "controversy" surrounding critical race theory.
This guy says Critical Race Theory is the most important issue in the Virginia Election. He also says he has no idea what Critical Race Theory is.
There's a short (38 seconds) video if you want to click through and see for yourself, but this seems like a good summary of those who are concerned about critical race theory. They don't know what it is, but they're sure they don't like it.
It seems to me that you could also say that the majority of its supporters don't know what it is either, but they're 100% for it.
I came across this on Twitter and it pretty well summarizes the "controversy" surrounding critical race theory.
This guy says Critical Race Theory is the most important issue in the Virginia Election. He also says he has no idea what Critical Race Theory is.
There's a short (38 seconds) video if you want to click through and see for yourself, but this seems like a good summary of those who are concerned about critical race theory. They don't know what it is, but they're sure they don't like it.
It seems to me that you could also say that the majority of its supporters don't know what it is either, but they're 100% for it.
Does critical race theory as such have "supporters" outside of graduate level education?
Or to put it another way, how many supporters of the things being called "critical race theory" by its detractors would describe what they're supporting with the term "critical race theory"?
I came across this on Twitter and it pretty well summarizes the "controversy" surrounding critical race theory.
This guy says Critical Race Theory is the most important issue in the Virginia Election. He also says he has no idea what Critical Race Theory is.
There's a short (38 seconds) video if you want to click through and see for yourself, but this seems like a good summary of those who are concerned about critical race theory. They don't know what it is, but they're sure they don't like it.
It seems to me that you could also say that the majority of its supporters don't know what it is either, but they're 100% for it.
Does critical race theory as such have "supporters" outside of graduate level education?
Or to put it another way, how many supporters of the things being called "critical race theory" by its detractors would describe what they're supporting with the term "critical race theory"?
Your post clearly indicated that the detractors of CRT were identifying with their tribe rather than engaging an academic argument on its academic merits. My point, as I expect you well understood, is that the problem of placing group identity above reason is spread pretty evenly throughout the political spectrum.
Do you really think both sides are the same, @tclune ? That spreading lies about what is being taught is the same as wanting the history of America to be taught?
Your post clearly indicated that the detractors of CRT were identifying with their tribe rather than engaging an academic argument on its academic merits. My point, as I expect you well understood, is that the problem of placing group identity above reason is spread pretty evenly throughout the political spectrum.
Not really. What I understood your post to say was that there were people who self-identify as supporters of "critical race theory" who are doing objectionable things, like stocking a library with books. I question the value of buying into a conspiracy theory that ordinary children's books are part of some vast, coordinated cabal at work.
Do you really think both sides are the same, @tclune ? That spreading lies about what is being taught is the same as wanting the history of America to be taught?
Do you really think both sides are the same, @tclune ? That spreading lies about what is being taught is the same as wanting the history of America to be taught?
Do you really think that's what I said? Amazing.
Well your post does come across very much like bothsideism, what did you mean ?
Do you really think both sides are the same, @tclune ? That spreading lies about what is being taught is the same as wanting the history of America to be taught?
Do you really think that's what I said? Amazing.
Well your post does come across very much like bothsideism, what did you mean ?
Nietzsche once said something along the lines of the worst enemy of a great idea is its stupid supporter. If you want to invoke that idiotic bothsideism trope against me, I guess you can truly accuse me of believing that stupidity is not limited to any one political group.
Ok so that is a perfectly reasonable statement, duff arguments, and irrational supporters are not limited to any one group - but where does that get us regarding critical race theory ? Do you think it’s a valid approach, if not why not ?
(Also what do you think is “idiotic” about the bothsidism idea - essentially it recognises that not all debates / arguments / evidence bases are an equal an opposite reflection of each other, and acting as if they are when the situation is very asymetric is distorting.)
hosting
Racism is taken very seriously on this board. This thread is discussing both an academic subject and an indubitably racist moral panic against it.
While 'placing group identity above reason' might be 'spread pretty evenly throughout the political spectrum.' and 'stupidity' might be also, the harms of racism are not evenly spread.
Therefore it's important that when posters ask another poster to clarify that they're not minimising the harm of racism in a topic like this that they get respectful and reassuring answers, not scornful or insulting ones.
Any more aggressive posts like that T Clune on a sensitive subject like racism and Commandment 1 will come into play.
Do you really think both sides are the same, @tclune ? That spreading lies about what is being taught is the same as wanting the history of America to be taught?
Do you really think that's what I said? Amazing.
Well your post does come across very much like bothsideism, what did you mean ?
Nietzsche once said something along the lines of the worst enemy of a great idea is its stupid supporter. If you want to invoke that idiotic bothsideism trope against me, I guess you can truly accuse me of believing that stupidity is not limited to any one political group.
Sure you can find stupid people everywhere on the political spectrum, but even admitting my bias in this regard it's hard to avoid the conclusion that there is a concentration of people willing to ignore facts in favour of ideology on the right, and a greater tendency towards cheering for one's "team". You only have to look at the US senate to see that, with Republicans managing almost lockstep coordination and Democrats pointing in all directions.
So I'd like to highlight the bit of CRT which I am most resistant to believing, possibly more because I don't want to than because I can disprove it. And that is the idea that racism is permanent and will not be overcome by the typical liberal approach of bit by bit working within the system to change the system.
I assume nobody is simply saying that perfection is unachievable, since that is banal. What I take it to mean is that it's not worth continuing to work within the existing system to improve it by legal/constitutional means because that will not get to an acceptable state. Not that nothing at all can be achieved (also banal) but that to get to where there is a "good-enough" level of racial justice, the current approach will not work.
If I am wrong is thinking that this is a belief of CRTheories then I'm glad but surprised. But that's happened before. I don't want it to be true because I don't see what alternative has a better chance of working.
I think I grew up in a world where we were taught that race was a "solved" problem. I still know people who talk like the fact that they "don't see race" means that this problem is simply not real for anyone.
I'm also, by habit, a believer in long term incrementalism, but watching the whole bleeding country backslide makes me think we're going to be struggling with this forever, at least as far as I can see it. There are just too many people who profit from stamping the pain down and pretending it isn't real. And I can still sometimes catch threads of racism and prejudice in my reasonably-enlightened liberal mind.
I have hope we may be able to improve, but I don't see what's horrible about admitting the simple truth that it's an uphill battle that may never properly be resolved.
And the fact that we may never get "perfect" is no reason to stop fighting for a better "good" for the present and the future.
Do you really think both sides are the same, @tclune ? That spreading lies about what is being taught is the same as wanting the history of America to be taught?
How did you get this out of what tclune said? Wanting the history of America to be taught is not the same as supporting CRT - plenty of people have wanted US history to be taught, warts and all, long before law professors developed CRT.
Do you really think both sides are the same, @tclune ? That spreading lies about what is being taught is the same as wanting the history of America to be taught?
How did you get this out of what tclune said? Wanting the history of America to be taught is not the same as supporting CRT - plenty of people have wanted US history to be taught, warts and all, long before law professors developed CRT.
But opposition to [the phantasm the right labels as] CRT certainly does include not wanting to teach the warts, wens and suppurating sores of US history.
I'm also, by habit, a believer in long term incrementalism, but watching the whole bleeding country backslide makes me think we're going to be struggling with this forever, at least as far as I can see it. There are just too many people who profit from stamping the pain down and pretending it isn't real. And I can still sometimes catch threads of racism and prejudice in my reasonably-enlightened liberal mind.
I have hope we may be able to improve, but I don't see what's horrible about admitting the simple truth that it's an uphill battle that may never properly be resolved.
And the fact that we may never get "perfect" is no reason to stop fighting for a better "good" for the present and the future.
Everything you say here is sensible, and yet I think it's also reasonable to think that it is possible (and an achievable goal that we should target) to eliminate structural racism completely. I don't think it's a quick process - achieving a complete elimination of structural racism is probably the work of generations - but I see no reason to label it impossible.
I also see no advantage in labeling it impossible. To me, labeling something as impossible is a defeatist attitude that tends to be followed by "so we shouldn't even try, because there's no point". And I am very much opposed to that idea.
Hosting
I think we've got a problem here - we've got an academic theory which can quite properly be discussed and critiqued by those who do the reading and bring the evidence to the table and we've got a bogey man misrepresentation of the theory which has been invented for racist ends and discussing both on the same thread is muddying the waters. We're discussing two different things under the same name. I'm going to look into whether I can thread split or make two new threads to separate these issues.
[This might have to wait a bit as I have a hospital appointment and this is tricky thread stuff!]
Do you really think both sides are the same, @tclune ? That spreading lies about what is being taught is the same as wanting the history of America to be taught?
How did you get this out of what tclune said? Wanting the history of America to be taught is not the same as supporting CRT - plenty of people have wanted US history to be taught, warts and all, long before law professors developed CRT.
Because CRT isn't being taught in schools anyway and the threat of it is being invoked by those who seem to object to any teaching about race whatsoever (reference the links in @Crœsos 's post above )
Do you really think both sides are the same, @tclune ? That spreading lies about what is being taught is the same as wanting the history of America to be taught?
How did you get this out of what tclune said? Wanting the history of America to be taught is not the same as supporting CRT - plenty of people have wanted US history to be taught, warts and all, long before law professors developed CRT.
But opposition to [the phantasm the right labels as] CRT certainly does include not wanting to teach the warts, wens and suppurating sores of US history.
And that is exactly why I get that out of what tclune said, @Ruth. And what @chrisstiles said.
I'm also, by habit, a believer in long term incrementalism, but watching the whole bleeding country backslide makes me think we're going to be struggling with this forever, at least as far as I can see it. There are just too many people who profit from stamping the pain down and pretending it isn't real. And I can still sometimes catch threads of racism and prejudice in my reasonably-enlightened liberal mind.
I have hope we may be able to improve, but I don't see what's horrible about admitting the simple truth that it's an uphill battle that may never properly be resolved.
And the fact that we may never get "perfect" is no reason to stop fighting for a better "good" for the present and the future.
Everything you say here is sensible, and yet I think it's also reasonable to think that it is possible (and an achievable goal that we should target) to eliminate structural racism completely. I don't think it's a quick process - achieving a complete elimination of structural racism is probably the work of generations - but I see no reason to label it impossible.
I also see no advantage in labeling it impossible. To me, labeling something as impossible is a defeatist attitude that tends to be followed by "so we shouldn't even try, because there's no point". And I am very much opposed to that idea.
It's not defeatist. I've spent my life resisting things with no progress being made.
Might also be a generational political thing. I see climate change bearing down on us like an oncoming train, and most of the world is barely able to bring themselves to make even the slightest change of direction. So I think that for some of us, if it's not gonna happen in a few generations, I don't know if we'll see it.
I think for my world, defeatism isn't an option. My life, perhaps in a Christian sense, is built around "How do I want to be seen in death?" I carry my cross. As I get older, it gets more obvious.
I don't want to die being an enabler of evil. I don't expect to win at this point. I don't have the luxury. My brain doesn't have much patience for delusions, especially pleasant ones. But I'm still gonna live my life the way it ought to be lived. At least I can tell my kids that I tried.
I sympathize with the PR need for hope, but...I can't bring myself to lie to myself about the world. I don't mean to direct this at anyone, though I can see how some might feel targeted, but...despair is a luxury for people who aren't affected.
I was at a Grace Petrie gig recently where she played a song she wrote about how she feels about fighting for things that haven't yet been achieved, I found it rather inspiring https://youtu.be/imk8Wnnv3rM
This came up earlier, and because this is the most recent discussion, I'm posting it here - (link to Guardian coverage) entitled English schools must not teach ‘white privilege’ as fact, government warns, as part of some new guidance due out some time soon. The article starts:
English schools should not teach “contested theories and opinions … such as white privilege” as fact, the government has said prior to the publication of new guidance outlining how teaching certain political issues could break the law.
Schools should avoid promoting “partisan political views” and must instead teach racial and social justice topics in a “balanced and factual manner”, according to the government’s official response to a report on the educational disadvantages faced by white working-class pupils published by the education committee in June.
There is a UK problem of white working class kids being left behind in many areas, but the report was hugely criticised for cherry picking data at the time, and there are lots of criticism about ignoring the issues of racism in future Government advice.
Comments
Let's just agree to differ.
What a bizarre notion! It sounds like you are insisting that white people are necessarily biased (undoubtedly true) while other races are blissfully free of bias (the bizarre part.) One of the pernicious aspects of being part of a disadvantaged group is that it provides a ready-made excuse for all one's shortcomings -- I wasn't hired because I'm (fill in the blank); I am not loved because you are prejudiced against (___); etc. While the advantaged group members will tend to attribute their successes to personal virtue, the disadvantaged group has the mirror image limitation. One important mechanism for growth is to allow ourselves to absorb and evaluate the critique of the other. Or so ISTM.
I assume nobody is simply saying that perfection is unachievable, since that is banal. What I take it to mean is that it's not worth continuing to work within the existing system to improve it by legal/constitutional means because that will not get to an acceptable state. Not that nothing at all can be achieved (also banal) but that to get to where there is a "good-enough" level of racial justice, the current approach will not work.
If I am wrong is thinking that this is a belief of CRTheories then I'm glad but surprised. But that's happened before. I don't want it to be true because I don't see what alternative has a better chance of working.
What do you mean by the 'current approach', what do you mean by 'work' and what do you believe has been happening for the last few decades?
Communities always dissent as @Tubbs says above. I think it's worth looking at the balance of opinion, and wondering why mainstream media has sought to elevate the voices it has (Sewell studied literature, McWhorter is a linguist and Badenoch worked in IT).
This seems premised on the common belief among white people that "race" is something other people have.
So White voices have no standing to pontificate on CRT, and any individual Black voice is simply representing an individual not a community, so there is no such thing as an authoritative voice on CRT. And we shouldn't require the oppressed to do the work of resisting their oppression, but at the same time, we should keep quiet and not speak for them.
That's probably an unfair characterisation of what you're saying, but I'm not sure what you are saying.
I wasn't aware that I'd attempted to do that. The point of my question wasn't about whether a particular inequity is or isn't racist, but about whether a direct accusation of racism would have better or worse results than simply calling out the inequity without attributing a cause to it. And that is not a question about experiences of racism but about the inside of White people's heads, which is something I do have some experience of.
You might need to show your working on that one.
The answer is that it probably depends. In situations where the inequality is a directly caused by ~ism resolving it will involve acknowledging it exists. You're unlikely to solve one without addressing the other.
Wondering whether a direct accusation of racism would have better or worse results doesn't seem to give enough weight to the experiences of those on the receiving end of it. It seems more about protecting the feelings of the white person.
I'm not sure this will help but ... I've got no lived experience of racism either so when a black person tells me something is racist, I assume they're right. I'm also grateful that they've trusted me enough to say that. A black person calling out a white person isn't without risk.
CRT has roots in academia and law and there are authoritative voices in the black community who've spoken in support of it. As @chrisstiles points out, they're not the ones who get airtime. The ones who get airtime are the ones who dismiss it. Because they're the ones telling the powers that be what they want to hear.
What I'm also trying to point out is that when issues related to minority groups are discussed, individuals within that group are treated as "the voice of their community". But no one assumes that one man or one white person speaks for all of them.
Like I said, I've got no lived experience of what it's like to be on the receiving end of racism. But if you want a master class in my lived experience of sexism, I've free until Bake Off starts ...
Maybe more that the advantaged group tends assume life's good things are theirs by right. And then act out when they find they aren't. So X only gets hired for the top job because they fill a quota. Rather than because they were truly the best candidate.
@tclune, I think I might understand what you are actually saying, but this could read as a racist trope about minority groups not trying and then using excuses. Please try to consider how your statements may sound from other points of view.
Gwai,
Epiphanies host.
It feels like you are trying to argue for a symmetrical bias, when real world experience suggests it is asymmetric.
Firstly thanks for a response that is considerably more gracious than mine.
ISTM that if one is trying to change hearts and minds, then, on a purely pragmatic level, the feelings of the person whose heart and mind you want to change are relevant - that's why the PR and advertising industry exists, and why there's more to being a successful campaigner than just being right. Although ultimately I think I agree with 'it probably depends' as an answer to the actual question.
Where I was coming from is that if an opinion on CRT is invalidated because it comes from a White person, that implies that the qualifying factor that makes a voice authoritative or not is the race to which you belong, and if Black* voices are saying different things, then there is no authoritative opinion at all. Now in practice I think @chrisstiles is right, but that is making academic credentials the key to authority - which in turn raises the possibility that a White sociologist could hold more authority than a Black software engineer.
Whether you need a Black person to tell you whether a particular act is racist or not also seems to fall under 'it depends'. Some things are pretty blatant, and some things can be hidden under plausible deniability.
* I feel I should acknowledge that I'm talking as though the only two possible categories of human being are Black and White, but saying 'White' and 'Non-White' seems problematic as well.
Mt sense is that some folks look at these things through political eyes and some through religious eyes. In political terms, my team is always more sinned against than sinning. In religious terms, I always have work to do to become more as God intends.
I think ultimately there are very few shortcuts to carefully examining each side of the argument. I wouldn't necessarily make academic credentials on their own key to authority, but when considering an academic field it's very telling to me when the dissenting voices promoted as authentic by one side are ones that come from outside that discipline. Picking a dead horse comparison; it's similar to how the credentials of various Phds (who generally turned out to be chemists or engineers) were touted in ID/Creationist circles.
Academic and journalistic work tends to be very much at the mercy of funding which in turn depends on institutional structure, and that would lead me to expect that new insights into oppression would tend to come - at least initially - from among the community of the oppressed, because they would be more likely to have drive to question existing orthodoxies. It's not a perfect analog - but it's no surprise that the #MeToo movement sprung out initially from the work of two women.
There a lot more people posting poorly-informed ideas based on "how things seem to them" than there is engagement with the personal identities actually informing CRT.
Would it be possible to ask that people actually read some source material before venturing opinions or asking to be educated by what precious few relevant-identity insights might manifest?
I'm curious about where you got this idea. The foremost voices that I know of working on CRT in the US are legal scholars employed by prestigious law schools, so they're very much working within the system. CRT analyzes systems in order to see where they are racist with an eye to changing those systems. Some systems may have to be entirely replaced, some may need to be re-envisioned, some may need substantial change. But I don't see anyone working on CRT saying to burn everything down or for marginalized people to buy an island somewhere and not deal with everyone else at all.
My lived experience of sexism and of telling perfectly nice guys about it and watching their jaws drop because they had no idea is one reason why I believe Black people and other people of color when they tell me about racism.
This. The writings of bell hooks and Audre Lorde in the 1980s laid the groundwork for later thinking about intersectional understandings.
From bell hooks' Killing Rage: Ending Racism:
"Since the notion that we should all forsake attachment to race and/or cultural identity and be “just humans” within the framework of white supremacy has usually meant that subordinate groups must surrender their identities, beliefs, values, and assimilate by adopting the values and beliefs of privileged-class whites."
Exactly. Where's the high five smiley when you need it?
Probably the biggest learning for white people in conversations about racism is that their's isn't the most important voice in the room. That said, it's not the job of those on the receiving end to educate those of us who aren't. We need to do that for ourselves. I found I'm no longer talking to white people about race really helpful as a starting point. Not got round to the book yet.
However, I am approaching this without the same level of knowledge as some on this ship, and it has already been implied that people below a certain level of expertise should stay away from discussions on this board, and not use it as a means of self education.
Well it is true that I do come into that category.
Plus both here and on the thread about assisted dying, there has been a suggestion that I am insensitive, and when in discussions, I realise this is true. Hopefully not intentionally rude but probably just not thinking about other people's sensitivities, or sometimes plain weariness in going over the same ground again and again.
So I'll politely bow out of this thread. And I don't expect howls of protest!
I have told this story before. One of the more interesting courses I did with my last employer was group process theory. It was an experiential course in an inner London education service. Those taking part were a multicultural group. We were exposed to the experience of how to be in a group, what the other people in the group might be experiencing, what the other people in the group bring into the sessions, what that might mean to lead groups and how ensure that all the group gain from the process.
In one of the sessions race was brought up as a challenge to the group: how might group participants' experience of racism affect their engagement in a group? There were black and Asian men and women taking part, who talked of their experiences, the white women mainly processed this through their understanding of sexism, several of the white men were aware enough of racism to have considered the issues, one because this was the second time he'd attended this course. The one person in the group who got extremely angry and could not understand what was being discussed was one of the white middle aged men. If we hadn't been trying to help him understand, I suspect we'd have segued into intersectionality, because we did touch on that later with a younger Muslim man who people did not believe was Muslim - he looked Eastern European.
Other than hearing first hand accounts of racism in a group where we were supposed to listen and learn about people's experience, I also took away that unless people are aware of discrimination through experience, it is harder to understand quite how discrimination works.
One of the banned books is one I have read. Mikki Kendall's 'Hood Feminism: Notes from the Women White Feminism Forgot' which I would also recommend if you don't mind the chance of feeling uncomfortable.
There is a link to the list in the Texas Tribune article if you are interested.
What if one isn't trying to "change hearts and minds", just stop destructive and discriminatory actions? It's a distinct possibility that a lot of non-white people just want to go about their business without devoting their lives to the moral redemption of white folks.
I think it's more accurate to say that the Texas law is so vague any book more complex than Hop On Pop could plausibly "fit the category", which I've long suspected is the point of such laws.
The gubernatorial campaign in Virginia seems to be treading similar ground, with Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin using his closing ad to gripe about the use of Toni Morrison's Pulitzer Prize winning novel Beloved in AP English classes. For those who are unfamiliar with the American educational system, Advanced Placement (AP) classes are college-level courses that can be taken by college-bound high school students and will often be counted for college credit if the student does well enough on a test administered at the end. In other words students who decide to take such classes should expect to be confronted with difficult material. Cue concerned mother Laura Murphy:
So "mature references means slavery or the Holocaust", just so long as you don't examine the actual brutality of slavery (or, presumably, the Holocaust). Seems about right for the funhouse mirror version of "critical race theory" Republican politicians are opposing.
Not really sure where you're going here. This may be obvious, but I'm going to say it, because it's an important point that some people seem to want to gloss over.
People who experience racism are more likely to notice racism than people who don't.
If you're not on the receiving end of racism, or some other kind of ism, it's easy for you to muddle your way through life not noticing the racism that your neighbours experience. You'd probably notice someone shouting offensive racial epithets in the street, but most of it isn't quite so blatant, and if it's not happening to you, then you might well not notice. It's not that you are biased but people of other races are not biased: it's that your experiences are structurally different. There is a bias in the experiences that you have.
There's a short (38 seconds) video if you want to click through and see for yourself, but this seems like a good summary of those who are concerned about critical race theory. They don't know what it is, but they're sure they don't like it.
It seems to me that you could also say that the majority of its supporters don't know what it is either, but they're 100% for it.
Does critical race theory as such have "supporters" outside of graduate level education?
Or to put it another way, how many supporters of the things being called "critical race theory" by its detractors would describe what they're supporting with the term "critical race theory"?
Not really. What I understood your post to say was that there were people who self-identify as supporters of "critical race theory" who are doing objectionable things, like stocking a library with books. I question the value of buying into a conspiracy theory that ordinary children's books are part of some vast, coordinated cabal at work.
Do you really think that's what I said? Amazing.
Well your post does come across very much like bothsideism, what did you mean ?
Nietzsche once said something along the lines of the worst enemy of a great idea is its stupid supporter. If you want to invoke that idiotic bothsideism trope against me, I guess you can truly accuse me of believing that stupidity is not limited to any one political group.
(Also what do you think is “idiotic” about the bothsidism idea - essentially it recognises that not all debates / arguments / evidence bases are an equal an opposite reflection of each other, and acting as if they are when the situation is very asymetric is distorting.)
Racism is taken very seriously on this board. This thread is discussing both an academic subject and an indubitably racist moral panic against it.
While 'placing group identity above reason' might be 'spread pretty evenly throughout the political spectrum.' and 'stupidity' might be also, the harms of racism are not evenly spread.
Therefore it's important that when posters ask another poster to clarify that they're not minimising the harm of racism in a topic like this that they get respectful and reassuring answers, not scornful or insulting ones.
Any more aggressive posts like that T Clune on a sensitive subject like racism and Commandment 1 will come into play.
Thanks,
Louise
Epiphanies Host
hosting off
Sure you can find stupid people everywhere on the political spectrum, but even admitting my bias in this regard it's hard to avoid the conclusion that there is a concentration of people willing to ignore facts in favour of ideology on the right, and a greater tendency towards cheering for one's "team". You only have to look at the US senate to see that, with Republicans managing almost lockstep coordination and Democrats pointing in all directions.
I think I grew up in a world where we were taught that race was a "solved" problem. I still know people who talk like the fact that they "don't see race" means that this problem is simply not real for anyone.
I'm also, by habit, a believer in long term incrementalism, but watching the whole bleeding country backslide makes me think we're going to be struggling with this forever, at least as far as I can see it. There are just too many people who profit from stamping the pain down and pretending it isn't real. And I can still sometimes catch threads of racism and prejudice in my reasonably-enlightened liberal mind.
I have hope we may be able to improve, but I don't see what's horrible about admitting the simple truth that it's an uphill battle that may never properly be resolved.
And the fact that we may never get "perfect" is no reason to stop fighting for a better "good" for the present and the future.
How did you get this out of what tclune said? Wanting the history of America to be taught is not the same as supporting CRT - plenty of people have wanted US history to be taught, warts and all, long before law professors developed CRT.
But opposition to [the phantasm the right labels as] CRT certainly does include not wanting to teach the warts, wens and suppurating sores of US history.
Everything you say here is sensible, and yet I think it's also reasonable to think that it is possible (and an achievable goal that we should target) to eliminate structural racism completely. I don't think it's a quick process - achieving a complete elimination of structural racism is probably the work of generations - but I see no reason to label it impossible.
I also see no advantage in labeling it impossible. To me, labeling something as impossible is a defeatist attitude that tends to be followed by "so we shouldn't even try, because there's no point". And I am very much opposed to that idea.
I think we've got a problem here - we've got an academic theory which can quite properly be discussed and critiqued by those who do the reading and bring the evidence to the table and we've got a bogey man misrepresentation of the theory which has been invented for racist ends and discussing both on the same thread is muddying the waters. We're discussing two different things under the same name. I'm going to look into whether I can thread split or make two new threads to separate these issues.
[This might have to wait a bit as I have a hospital appointment and this is tricky thread stuff!]
cheers
L
Epiphanies Host
Hosting off
Because CRT isn't being taught in schools anyway and the threat of it is being invoked by those who seem to object to any teaching about race whatsoever (reference the links in @Crœsos 's post above )
And that is exactly why I get that out of what tclune said, @Ruth. And what @chrisstiles said.
It's not defeatist. I've spent my life resisting things with no progress being made.
Might also be a generational political thing. I see climate change bearing down on us like an oncoming train, and most of the world is barely able to bring themselves to make even the slightest change of direction. So I think that for some of us, if it's not gonna happen in a few generations, I don't know if we'll see it.
I think for my world, defeatism isn't an option. My life, perhaps in a Christian sense, is built around "How do I want to be seen in death?" I carry my cross. As I get older, it gets more obvious.
I don't want to die being an enabler of evil. I don't expect to win at this point. I don't have the luxury. My brain doesn't have much patience for delusions, especially pleasant ones. But I'm still gonna live my life the way it ought to be lived. At least I can tell my kids that I tried.
I sympathize with the PR need for hope, but...I can't bring myself to lie to myself about the world. I don't mean to direct this at anyone, though I can see how some might feel targeted, but...despair is a luxury for people who aren't affected.
There is a UK problem of white working class kids being left behind in many areas, but the report was hugely criticised for cherry picking data at the time, and there are lots of criticism about ignoring the issues of racism in future Government advice.