Sunday, May 30, 2021

The Problem With White People


Friends, no one likes whitey -- that's for sure -- but luckily critical race theory has come along to explain to us crackers why we suck so badly, and how we can apologize and prostrate our way to atonement.  Praise be!

Here's a great article on the wokeness-as-new-religious-othrodoxy paradigm.  The fanaticism and fervency of CRT's adherents may not be explainable in any other way.


The demonization of whites, and the assumption that all people of color are victims of "white supremacy", is a doctrine that is accepted in some unlikely places these days, including in school districts where you'd expect teachers and administrators to tread more lightly.  Is your child being subjected to this kind of indoctrination?  Find out! 

One thing which sustains CRT and "anti-racism" is the money to be made in hectoring self-hating white liberals about their "privilege".  It's a booming industry!


Luckily, President Trump appointed some solid conservatives to the federal bench, and they're doing what they can to protect us from blatant discrimination, like the undisguised bias in the recent "American Rescue Plan," which posits that white men should always go to the back of the bus.  We need to reaffirm constantly the principle of equal treatment, because without it we white conservatives will be voiceless, jobless, homeless, and friendless, and quick! 

Here's a VERY interesting poll.  COVID anxiety is receding...and worries about crime are rapidly escalating.  Most independents, moreover, view President Trump as better on crime than "President" Biden.  The Dems really are turning America into a place that looks more like San Francisco, Portland, and Chicago...and we hope the voters will notice and recoil!


  1. Nick, it is infuriating to see smart people like yourself contribute to the continued misunderstanding of what Critical Race Theory is, as well as it being conflated with cultural relevant teaching and "anti-racism" (Robin DeAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi are not critical race theorists. They are sloppy writers who have received undeserved attention for intellectually challenged works).

    The basic tenets of critical race theory, or CRT, emerged out of a framework for legal analysis in the late 1970s and early 1980s created by such legal scholars Derrick Bell, KimberlĂ© Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, among others. The core idea of CRT is that racism is a social construct – that is, it is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies. The theory says that racism is part of everyday life, so people—white or nonwhite—who don’t intend to be racist can nevertheless make choices that fuel racism.

    In terms of CRT applied to legal studies, a good example is when, in the 1930s, government officials literally drew lines around areas deemed poor financial risks, often explicitly due to the racial composition of inhabitants. Banks subsequently refused to offer mortgages to Black people in those areas. Today, those same patterns of discrimination live on through facially race-blind policies, like single-family zoning that prevents the building of affordable housing in advantaged, majority-white neighborhoods and, thus, stymies racial desegregation efforts.

    In a different example, scholars who study critical race theory in education look at how policies and practices in K-12 education contribute to persistent racial inequalities in education, and advocate for ways to change them. Among the topics they’ve studied: racially segregated schools, the underfunding of majority-Black and Latino school districts, disproportionate disciplining of Black students, barriers to gifted programs and selective-admission high schools, and curricula that reinforce racist ideas.

    None of the readings that you provided address what CRT actually is. Rather, they contribute to a continued misunderstanding of what CRT is, and how the legislators who are seeking to ban its teaching have no darn clue about what they are talking about.

    BTW, Roger Simon was wrong. Paolo Freire was not a Marxist. He was a Christian socialist. Big difference.

  2. Dr. Carveth,

    My "go-to" source on critical race theory is Dr. Carol Swain. If you have not already done so, please see what she has to say about CRT and a number of other issues.

    Thank you.

  3. Here is how Carol Swain describes Critical Race Theory:

    "Critical race theory is an analytical framework to analyze institutions and culture. Its purpose is to divide the world into white oppressors and non-white victims. Instead of traditional forms of knowledge, it holds up personal narratives of marginalized minority "victim" groups (blacks, Hispanics, Asians) as evidence (considered irrefutably by its nature) of the dishonesty of their mostly white heterosexual oppressors. The ultimate goal of this theory's proponents is to remake society so that the victim class eventually displaces oppressors and becomes the new ruling class."

    It is clear that Carol Swain has never read anything by Derrick Bell, or Richard Delgado or Kemberle Crenshaw or Cheryl Harris or Neil Gotanda. Otherwise, she wouldn't write something so silly and stupid. The only thing that she got right is that CRT is an analytical framework. The rest is such sheer bullshit!

    I understand why Carol Swain was suggested as a source -- because she is a black conservative academic who actually had a very solid book on blacks in Congress. Her subsequent books were far weaker, particularly on methodology, and her book, Be the People, was a poorly written screed attacking contemporary American. By that time, she wore out her welcome at Vanderbilt and mercifully retired.

    But, not all black academics are grounded in critical race theory, and Swain reveals she knows absolutely nothing about it.

    1. Rod,

      In the genealogy of Critical Race Theory, it's Marxist parentage and character simply cannot be denied. Recall, Marxism is a methodological approach, not a fixed ideology. Anyone remotely familiar with Marxist thought beyond classical Marxism is abundantly aware of the novel applications of Marx's methodological approach which took place in the early to mid-20th century, and the extent of it's proliferation into fields beyond the economic, political, and historical.

      Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer, et al, were certainly Marxists when they developed Critical Theory, and it’s applications in literature and history is well known and documented. Derrick Bell merely applied Critical Theory, which is Marxism, to his areas of interest and study. To suggest that Critical Race Theory is not Marxist is the equivalent of trying to separate the philosophy outlined in De Officiis from Stoicism, merely because Cicero made a few novel applications. De Officiis remains a work of Stoicism, and CRT remains Marxist. CRT shares it’s process, assumptions, and modes of thinking with Marxism, even if the object of those processes is different from how they were originally oriented.

      So Dr. Bell took well known development in Marxist methodology, and applied it to new areas to develop Critical Race Theory.

      Sounds like Marxism to me.

      Also, it’s clear that Carol Swain is addressing and critiquing the concrete recommendations and outcomes of CRT rather than it’s adherents linguistic obfuscations. Repeating a words definition based on the assumptions the words ideological adherents is the antithesis of seriously considering a topic.

      So when you write in the previous thread, and continue your elaboration in this one, stating, "That's also why Critical Race Theory is not Marxist." you prove yourself either a liar or an idiot, or as you put it, you, “...reveal you know nothing about it.”

      Pick your poison Rod.


    2. Lee, you're just plain wrong. First, Bell (if you actually read his work) did not apply Critical Theory to Critical Legal Studies. That's just false.

      Marcuse, Adorno and Horkheimer were NOT Marxists (FFS, Marcuse worked for the forerunner of the CIA). They belonged to the Frankfurt School, which also was not Marxist. The School critiqued both capitalism and Marxism.

      Swain knows nothing about Critical Race Theory as I showed in a previous post.

      I would continue to argue with you except it is a waste of time. I've read Marx, Bell, Delgado, Adorno, Marcuse, etc. and you clearly have not. You present critiques of theories and theoreticians whom you know NOTHING about. In that way, you are ignorant, just as ignorant as the legislators who are making public policy without knowing what they are talking about, and just as ignorant as Carol Swain whose only relationship to Critical Race Theory is that she is a person of color.

  4. I agree, Rod (as much as this pains me to say) Not all black academics are grounded in critical race theory, however, there are plenty of white academics who are. At least, my alma mater is. Shamefully so. Not all whites are racist, not all blacks are racist. Are there racists? Sure are. But too group or pit one group against another, wrong...which brings me to the plandemic.

    As for so the called pandemic, more and more folks are going mask less. I have to say, personally, seeing the signs "If you are vaccinated you don't have to wear a mask" quite discriminatory. I have the antibodies and therefor are immune, why discriminate against me? There are also segregation going on here in Western NY; such as in gyms (the non vaccinated can not mingle with the vaccinated), sep. tables etc. Horrible. But than again, more and more folks are saying Enough.

  5. Rod, you know a lot more about CRT than I do. It seems like a fancy paradigm that explains why and how EVERYTHING is racist...amd assumes racism is always to the advantage of whites and the disadvantage of non-whites. Are you saying CRT has nothing to do with "toxic whiteness", per se? Personally, I've always been allergic to theory. What underlies CRT and anti-racism and wokeness and all the rest of it is a Manichean perspective on race and ethnicity, and we all know who the good guys and the bad guys are supposed to be. I don't care for it.

    Linda, I can understand how you feel about the discrimination against the unvaccinated. Eventually I suspect much of it will be held illegal or unconstitutional...or ar the very least impractical. In the meantime, masking has become optional in many settings, in practice. I advise you to go maskless and stop reading signs. :)

    1. Ha-thanks for the smiles. Unfort. employers are still requiring masks, however, the vaccinated all they have to do is show their card and they can go mask less. Another segregation issue. I agree, eventually the courts will have to sort it out, but I do not have any hope of that happening anytime soon.

  6. Ah! That leaves you out in the cold at work, Linda, but not when shopping or dining or gallivanting yourself... Try to accentuate the positive. :)

  7. Lee/Rod -- Thanks for sharing your perspectives on critical race theory. I won't pretend to know much about it myself, or about Marxism, for that matter. I wish I did. Still, I know what I DON'T like, and that's a start.

    Rod, you say Marxism aims for statelessness, and its primary interim goal is public ownership of the means of production. Fair enough, but what would you say are the underlying attitudes/assumptions of Marxism? Do you deny the Manichean aspects that I talked about before? Do you accept the premise that anyone downtrodden must have gotten there because of oppression, or do you think there's any legitimate justification for inequality and/or hierarchy?