Tyre Nichols beating: Race Theory vs CRITICAL Race Theory

How it "addresses" systemic racism is the issue.

CRT asserts that our legal and economic systems are inherently racist. If you believe that you believe such systems are beyond reform and the problems they create can only be solved by replacing these systems. IMO, this is where CRT's Marxist foundation becomes visible. You don't have to read too deeply into the writing of CRT advocates to find an anti-capitalist message (e.g. Kendi's line "To love capitalism is to love racism.")

IMO, CRT is far less passive, and far more prescriptive, than its recreational supporters realize.

 

At the point where they beat him to death. Two possible options to explain "why" are in the OP.

 

Not sure Nazi Germany would be a proper example, as propaganda was actively encouraging racism. But it's possible that what you say is true.

Yes. But again, I'm hesitant to compare it literally to a Nazi storm trooper. I'm not saying it's the wrong comparison, though. Just... so many caveats...

I hope they do! Just like in Nuremberg, that won't exonerate them. They will have ZERO success, if they think that will help them (maybe that's why nobody ever uses that defense). But it would implicate their superiors. And I hope THEY also mount a similar defense all the way up the ladder to Congress. Which won't exonerate anybody down the ladder. But it WILL point to the ultimate culprits for not preventing this in the cases where it is preventable: those who failed to enact legislation that would make things like this from happening more rare. Hopefully it will also implicate those who make a living of disinformation who are ALSO responsible.

In cases like this, there are people who are guilty for carrying out the act, others guilty for not preventing it, and yet others who are responsible for disinformation that lead to it. Legislators fall into the second group. And pundits like Tucker Carlson fall in the last one. The guilt or innocence of each group is not determined by the guilt or innocence of the other

 

Now, for the first time, you may have developed your ideas concerning systemic-racism into a body of logic that can gain traction with the majority of Americans. If you can 'run this whole thing up the flag pole' to higher levels and show clearly that there is, and has been, a prescribed, almost 'templated' formula for dealing with certain ethnic or racial groups, then your case will be greatly strengthened! Moreover, your hypothesis could be fully supported (as I never tire of pointing out) by the Civil Rights Act of 1964... and it is a very powerful weapon, indeed!

But, I do suggest that as you work toward pursuing that tactic (if you decide to), you stay focused on law enforcement agencies and their departmental practices, written and oral. My caution to you, not for the first time, would be "don't paint with an overly-broad brush"... but, I think that this tragedy involving Tyre Nichols can be used in a positive way to illustrate the very possible reality of a clear example of systemic racism.

 

For a man who claims to research his positions, you obviously avoid researching anything that conflicts with what you want to believe.

Facts documented by FBI and Justice department records:

Black people feloniously assault whites at a rate 42 time that of whites assaulting blacks.
Does that not tell you black people are more violent?
If it doesn't, do you want to see documented facts that show blacks commit at least double their population share of every major crime category?
It gets repeated because it's getting worse and threatening society- and nothing is being done to address it., and the foolish are denying it.
And don't get into the hogwash of calling this racism- it's their culture, not their color, that is responsible. These are facts, not "talking points".

 

I think democrats actually racism, or else they have no relevance. Clearly, they aren't management capable, these days at least. It comes down to creating the feelz for their base though. And if you pretend you have favored status, then, as we have seen, democrats will justify about any behavior because of it..

 

I only use the Tyre Nichols example to illustrate what Critical Race Theory is. At a law enforcement level I don't think minorities should be treated differently. What we need is for them to be treated the same. They aren't. And this is to too many misconceptions, which I outlined in other threads. At a more systemic level what we need is to stop lies by fascists like DeSantis and Tucker Carlson...

 

CRT doesn't say how to address systemic racism. It just tells us that it exists, And its consequences. CRT is just a model to analyze a problem. How to change it is up to policies and education that are beyond the scope of CRT.

CRT doesn't say it's beyond reform.

Then you ascribe a "Marxist foundation" to CRT based on a false premise.

CRT is not politically ideological. So proposals to address the problem can come from multiple political ideologies.

Again: it's just a model to explain the problem. How we solve that problem is a matter of policy, but that's beyond the scope of CRT. This thread is intended to explain what it is and isn't. What to do about it is a whole different conversation and topic for a different thread.

 

I agree entirely that neither ethnic nor minority groups of any (ANY) identity should be treated any differently from any other segment of American citizens, however, I don't decry DeSantis or Tucker Carlson as "fascists". Heck, I don't even condemn creatures like Adam Schiff and Ilhan Omar as being "fascist". They may be deceitful, subversive, and inimical to nearly every single thing that 'made America great' (back when America was great ), but I try hard to avoid doing one thing I've suggested that you may want to watch carefully, too -- 'painting with an overly-broad brush'....

Nonetheless, press on! Let no 'institution' or publicly-funded organization escape proper scrutiny of its practices!

 

I responded to your off-topic as a courtesy. But that doesn't mean I'm open to derailing the thread.

There are other threads where that is the topic. For example
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/what-does-critical-race-theory-teach.589535/

Do read the OP first. It shows that all these statistics are not about actual crimes committed but about arrests, convictions, jail time.... All of which are slanted because of the fact that the system tends to punish black people way more than white people, as the OP demonstrates.

See you there...

 

So now, the system that provides the facts you don't like but research is doctoring the facts you don't agree with. Why don't they just consult you in the first place?

You probably haven't noticed, but the nation is in trouble. The denial of truth is a key reason for it.

 

WTF? Who said anything about "doctoring" anything? How would I even know if they were doctored or not, given that you don't include links. All I did was ask you to address it in the proper thread.

 

I think it's harder to show that Schiff and Omar are fascists than it is to show that DeSantis and Tucker are. I have done the latter several times. Projecting is not considered evidence. Off-topic though.

 

You're certainly welcome to your opinions, but the facts don't really support them.

CRT would represent meaningless commentary if it were only attempting to hold up a mirror. That their mirror so often distorts the image has a purpose. That purpose is to advocate for specific social policies and laws. There are not overt statements within the theory itself, but the message from those carrying the CRT banner is always there.

From the NAACP (emphasis added):

Critical Race Theory should be embraced as a framework to develop laws and policies that can dismantle structural inequities and systemic racism. Building a more equitable future requires an examination of how the shameful history of slavery, caste, and systemic racism were foundational to laws and institutions that exist today.

Source: https://www.naacpldf.org/critical-r...ZfppDfKpiGExgvWQ6J3nZ-sKZoWlvOzYaAh40EALw_wcB
​

And yes, CRT does imply the current system is beyond reform. From Britanica (emphasis added):

Critical race theorists hold that racism is inherent in the law and legal institutions of the United States insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans.

Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory​

Something is inherent is something that is both permanent and essential to a thing.

CRT absolutely has Marxist roots. One need only replace "class" with "race" to see the commonality. We can start with its curiously anti-capitalist messages as they keep popping up in the oddest places. LIke this NEA resolution I cited in another thread earlier today (see point B):

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ion-of-children.607796/page-2#post-1074002566

I've seen similar messages an CRT-inspired math teaching frameworks, why?

And CRT certainly draws from the Marxist Frankfurt School.

https://news.temple.edu/news/2021-08-05/untangling-controversy-around-critical-race-theory

There other problematic tenets of CRT, like its rejection of equal treatment under the law and even the scientific method, but that's somewhat of an aside in this thread.

IMO, the idea that CRT is only about describing racism is someone's Motte and Bailey argument. It's much more than that.

 

Advocate for the specific social policies and laws that solve the problem. You can deny that the problem exists, or you can acknowledge it. Of course, people who acknowledges the problem exists, will propose ways to solve it. But this thread is simply intended to explain what it is. And that it DOES exist.

If you understand this, and believe that only Marxism can solve it, then you're a Marxist. If you believe that Capitalism can solve it, you are a capitalist. If you believe it can't be solved, you're a nihilist.

That's up to you.

Then you quote those statements and rebut them. Which you haven't done. But, whatever you do, the fact is that episodes like the one we saw in the case of Tyre Nichols is a systemic problem, and not one of individual racism by the perpetuators. If you disagree with this last statement, you can state your objections. If you agree with that, then you can submit proposals as to how to solve it.

Nothing simpler...

​

And if you don't believe that laws should be more equitable, or that there is a history of slavery, or that it's not shameful...etc... then you rebut THAT.

So you think that laws and legal institutions can't be reformed.

Absurd! We have been reforming them for over 200 years again and again.

There is no such thing as race. There ARE social classes. But to believe that Marxism created social classes is beyond absurd. However, it's also off-topic in this thread. And you are obviously completely lost as to what Marxism IS.

Your whole discourse is absurd. Is what we saw in the case of Tyre Nichols an example of systemic racism, or not? If it is, then the main tenant of CRT is correct... makes ZERO difference where it originated. And if it isn't, then argue THAT.

 

In Memphis 88% of murder victims are black. Of those with known murderers, all were killed by blacks. Of course there is racial disparity in the enforcement of criminal laws in Memphis because there is a racial disparity in the commission of crime.

 

Sorry. I don't know what you're arguing, but I don't pay the least attention to posts based on statistics that are not accompanied by a reference. Any post that includes a statistic and no links, I just stop reading.

 

@Patricio Da Silva congratulations on using this poor guy's corpse as a tool to make another race baiting thread.
How did this work? You watched the horrible video and a light bulb went off in your head and you made this thread?

SAD

 

Way to cut his statistical statement in half. Yup! That's about right though. That's how most libs treat math and statistics and FACTS that they don't like

 

And then there is the real world

In the 1970s, Bell and these other legal scholars began using the phrase "critical race theory" (CRT) as a takeoff on critical legal studies, a branch of legal scholarship that challenges the validity of concepts such as rationality, objective truth, and judicial neutrality. Critical legal theory was itself a takeoff on critical theory, a philosophical framework with roots in Marxist thought.
Derrick Bell - Wikipedia

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is an offshoot of Marxism. “Critical theory,” a branch of Marxism that originated in Germany in the late 1920s, differed from ordinary Marxism by focusing on ideological warfare that undermined bourgeois institutions’ legitimacy. In the 1970s, Harvard law professor Derrick Bell took the lead in adapting Marxist critical theory to civil rights and came up with “critical race theory.”
Critical Race Theory - Сivics Alliance (civicsalliance.org)

Derrick Bell Describes Marxist Foundation of Critical Race Theory - YouTube

No doubt youve convinced yourself that you are a better judge of the roots of CRT than Derrick Bell.

 

You live in your own private delusion.

Memphis Flyer | Black, White, and Dead

 

You're being a bit slippery there. I never said there isn't a problem. One need only look at the economic condition of black America to know there is a problem. What I am challenging is your assertion that CRT only tells us that a problem exists. IMO, that is a fatally incomplete description of CRT.

You seem to gravitate toward straw-men. I never made nor implied any such claim.

More straw. I said nothing of the kind. I assert that CRT claims our current institutions cannot be reformed, and cited evidence to that effect. Whether you speak to that evidence is up to you.

The first statement is nonsense, but I agree CRT conflates the two in a Marxist context, which is my point.

No, it's evidence of five cops who very likely should be in jail. There is absolutely no indication their actions were racially motivated, and, given that all five cops were black, there is at least circumstantial evidence that their motivation was something other than skin color.

 

You're jumping into a discussion without reading it. As I said to the poster, CRT is not a political position. So the solutions to institutional racism can respond to ANY political ideology.

 

We can read what you said. "Then you ascribe a "Marxist foundation" to CRT based on a false premise." His premise isnt false and CRT is built upon its foundation in marxism. IT IS neo Marxism.

 

CRT can tell a lot of people a lot of things. But the PREMISE is what is described in the OP. It's ALL it is. Once that is out of the way, you can apply your favorite political ideology.

For example, you can do the same with the drug problem. A Marxist might say that drug addiction is a capitalist problem (which, BTW, some have). Or that it can be solved by shutting down Wall Street. That doesn't mean that the solution to drug addiction is Marxist. Drug addiction, like systemic racism, are just problems that you can propose solutions to from ANY political perspective.

You said ". That purpose is to advocate for specific social policies and laws." and quoted a paragraph that calls for more equitable laws. If it's not what you mean, you need to be more specific. So what if the NAACP wants more equitable laws? Don't we all? Unless you don't, I don't see a purpose in quoting that. So you didn't MAKE the claim. But it's a very reasonable assumption it's what you meant.

No!!! I don't think you're following your own arguments. You said that the fact that institutional racism is inherent in the laws and institutions of the United States makes it "beyond reform". You are more than welcome to change your mind. But don't try to blame it on me. Laws and institutions are NOT "beyond reform"

Marxists can do whatever the hell they want. Only thing I care is if they're right or not. And no... there IS no such thing as "race". You're talking about ethnicity. And of course social level can be very much part of their ethnicity. Using the proper terms elucidates a lot in this discussion.

Oh no! Don't tell me I've been debating with you and you haven't even read the OP. You wouldn't have made this statement if you had. Please do that. It's the first thing you should have done.