It's difficult because many indigenous people are also quite racist when you get down to the history of their interactions with other tribes, and really, the best way to refer to them would likely be to address them by virtue of their tribal affiliations which can fuel those tensions for those who are so inclined. I think the standards should always be to elevate the conversation to address everyone as respectfully as possible, despite their unknown designations, beliefs or past. After all, everyone becomes a better person by virtue of the respect they are given, not by blind admiration or condemnation. That said, we should be quicker to apologize prior to the conversation becoming difficult, (which is exactly what you did in this post), when the conversation is already addressing a scale too massive to elucidate in detail.

A good faith response about Logic/Reason being 'white': Rich and poor are both able to be arrested for sleeping under bridges. This is perfectly logical even reasonable. Not sure if you have ever argued with a liberal...but im sure you have been in a place when you criticize a racist thing someone said and they react as if you struck them directly. Because for that person logic dictates that only a racist can say racist things and they are no racist. Context helps makes the examples

Also the whole thing about logic/reason and crt is that this is at the expense of empathy/sympathy. Its actually kinda explicit that they talk about the inhumanity and coldness of logic and reason. It would be like.....saying the response to stealing bread should be to chop off the offending hand. Logic/reason dictates we should take every offending hand CRT advocates would, before all else, ask....why was he stealing bread?

It's honestly very frustrating that white people are trying to be this champion of anti-race rhetoric because it very much hinders our ability to listen to others and communicate. The latinx thing confuses me a lot because of this, as I've seen it be used and rejected by people in that community, but it's always white people that take charge of the conversation when we butted in in the first place. I just want to communicate the right way damn it.

@@justjess6636 from a purely statistical standpoint, there are more of them technically speaking. They are the majority within this country. The LatinX thing is in part academic thing like a lot of other terminology and that almost never translates well into the proper Material World of people excluded from those places and the disingenuous in those places. Like some who at a glance are Latino or Mexican actually arent and so when "everyday" people use these terms they fuck it up a bit because they generalize too much. Something like latinX is more useful and more used by americanized young people up to age 24. Older than that and its a known concept maybe but unless you are super progressive and also academically into it, you prob wouldnt use it for yourself. Don't shoehorn people. And if it matters to you, i aint white

+1

honestly, that comment is kinda funny to me bc jessie gender regularly perpetuates enbyphobia. I, as a nonbinary person, really dont think you should be using her as a model for anything.

Hbomberguy is another great example. Or he would be if he actually put out videos...

@@amiaswolfgang really? I've only seen a few of her videos and enjoyed them and I didn't pick up on that. That's really unfortunate

OMG I DIDNT REALIZE PEOPLE WATCHED HERRRR

I keep hearing "stop teaching CRT in schools" and think it's about the Chinese Remainder Theorem

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hLaAf5qUxr-qnZs.html

@@toatoa10 I also think of the old TVs and computer monitors. I was like huh? Are y'all still using the 90s technology textbooks those were old when I was in school!

@@toatoa10 No, they actually mean cardiac resynchronisation therapy. To be fair, students should at least be taught basic anaesthesiology and suturing before they start practising pacemaker installation on each other.

cathode ray tube, love it.

I really am impressed that you are doing research

yes! these types of comments are always good to see as it's great to see people doing research on their own. in my opinion, anti-intellectualism is one of the major problems we face today, and us taking our time to inform ourselves is a big way of fighting back against that

It’s b.s. and very abusive and damaging. I experienced it, from the source, within Academia as a professor. It’s pure evil.

Maybe you'll like Khadija Mbowe aswell.

@@jchagasla yes, another awesome channel :D

@@jchagasla she’s awesome

totally the OP masturbachating. The critical race theory is stupid and from drug addicts. There is only ONE human race it just comes in a bunch of colors and sizes, but they're all human.

@@kushieuzimakeke oh god

Would love to get his opinion on the MCU

I definitely could imagine him talking about stuff like marvel.

I would, too.

This could be a amazing second channel or post more content that you like! You are absolutely interesting and if you want to deliver your opinion in another topics, this can be great!

Perhaps there needs to be a T2J channel? And one of these topics can be migrated? That way anyone who cares about only one can subscribe to just the one they care about, while folks who just like whatever is being said by this HAKO human can subscribe to both. :)

That lasted several generations.

@@TheNeodarkwing and lots of whipping no one consented too

@@jacksparrowismydaddy Unfortunately, over time, everyone forgot the safe word.

@@RichWoods23 I actually lol'd at that.

Accidental tourism. ..

No it isn’t. I went to high school in florida and we learned about slavery, jim Crowe and even the Tulsa race massacre .

@@billsimms2511 I'm not even from the USA and even I know of the bullshit USA has done, without requiring CRT to elaborate on how USA itself figured out how bad some of it's shit were and changed. CRT is not about learning the past, but learning the past through a racists lens

@@billsimms2511 it depends on the school, the south has always been known for not showing the full truth or even spending enough time on it not to mention it sometimes not even taught in the first place.

@@D44RK_Iced_Yogs It is in the Texas curriculum & staying there. A lot of news putlets falsely reported that Texas was banning Civil Rights history, when they were actually banninf the racist parts of CRT. America Uncovered did a good video on it.

@@D44RK_Iced_Yogs Yeah racism exists & the US has a history of racial supremacy (& now racial guilt & resentment in my upbringing & generation), no shit. But please realise the huge difference between what CRT say to the public & media VS their own central writings. The always use DOUBLE WORS MEANINGS depending on who they are talking to. CRT is in total conflict with the Foundations of Civil Rights, by their own sources: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mZaCf7SJsZ-Wiqc.html

Fr its crazy how much both sides have been talking about crt even though nobody even knows what it truly is

This is my comment exactly. I am spreading this video out there.

I actually agree with T1J on most of his criticisms.

This.

This was great. Can't wait to see how it's taken out of context.

💖 thank you

Are you alluding to the way conservatives will scoff and say "facts aren't racist" and then you have to explain that statements of fact seldom if ever occur in a vacuum, and that the context might make the statement of such a fact (not the fact itself) racist. E.g. discussing 13/50 in good faith and coming to an understanding of why black Americans disproportionately commit violent crime through a lens of their socio-economic conditions is perfectly fine as opposed to for instance, posting 13/50 memes with no further discussion of the issue.

@@mrsuperguy2073 That's what she's saying yeah

BOTH sides misrepresent "facts"

I don't think that's what he was saying. More that there are numerous principles that were the basis of the founding of the US, and not all are inherently based on racism. Of course, those basic principles can be manipulated to suit an assholes agenda, like logic, but the use of logic is still a positive thing when used with a proper ethical compass. That's more or less what I got it out it.

You know this for a fact?

The next worst thing is when people claim they're doing CRT, and then they just do racism but from the left

It must be very frustrating to Scientologists that those that have not read the works of L.Ron Hubburd still form opinions about his alien conspiracy theories. They need to do their homework about the actual philosophical ideas underpinning Scientology. A good place to start is Dianetics. There is no need for Scientologists to provide actual evidence of anything while debating. Just assert stuff and then make some vague reference to some alleged "expert"... that most accredited experts would probably dispute their arguments and objectivity. And if no one believes them... Scientologists can always cry perscution.

look into house bill 3979, texas passed it and texas makes the textbooks for America, no wonder history class is a complete disaster, they are just following the daughters of the confederacy I suppose.

CRT is racist Marxist garage. T1J is very biased and paints it in a positive light.

@@akhost3929 you’ve said a whole lot of nothing. Can’t even make a well defended argument for your stance

Yeah the issue is kind of that conservatives don’t want to just ban CRT, they want to ban any acknowledgement of systemic injustice by defining it as CRT and banning CRT. I’m pretty sure that “acknowledgement of systemic inequality” is like literally DeSantis’s legal definition of “wokeness.”

YEAHHHHHHHH

And there are no easy answers.

"there is always a well-known solution to every human problem-neat, plausible, and wrong." --H L Mencken

" it's complicated" Thats not an answer to anything!

The right wing is making a problem out of an issue that will not affect 99% of people's lives. This is not complicated

@@jst25 "And there are no easy answers." Saying "there are no easy answers" IS an easy answer. Your statement is self-contradicting

You've said this better than I could. I was immediately reminded of not just the bourgeois, but the petit bourgeois. It's not just one class and another class. It's individual people.

Yeah, pretty sad that he doesn't understand Marxism. There're things on alienation that say capitalists are also alienated by capitalism and suffer under it (esp petite bourgeois). Him saying that "he doesn't like" class analysis as if Marxists just randomly chose a form of division of ppl to be upset over is like denying slaves exist exactly and precisely because slave owners benefit from their oppression and exploitation.

Except by his own admission the assessment boils things down to economics, sans understanding of individuals beyond that. CRT has the same problem, only its way worse because the baseline is race.

@@MrCurbinator Idealistic Liberals "boil things down", Marx as a materialist built his understanding from the ground, from the most basic elements of what it is to be a living breathing human.

@@Edelgeist clearly not given his own admission of the issue with the theoretical lense

You're awesome dude. That's such a good attitude. Be a positive beacon to everyone around you.

I also live in a small town in rural Ohio where everyone in my family except my liberal grandma has Fox News on all day, every day. I think in the 5 minutes I've walked through the house and was within earshot of the living room TV, I've heard CRT mentioned 7 times.

You better not be in my small town in Ohio. Diversity is not a strength, no argument can prove it is. Food is not an argument.

@San Te 1) That's not an argument 2) You will have to make me "stfu"

@@davecoil4962 stfu

I've been trying to change this, but I've noticed that when someone is talking about another person and refers to them as "a guy", I paint a picture of them in my mind as white until I'm notified otherwise. I think its a pretty toxic belief to hold that white is the default, I definitely agree with your sentiment.

Color is not culture. Even if people were to perfectly assimilate, their color would remain the same.

I think that's really interesting and probably has something to do with whiteness = not being discriminated against in the U.S.A. for race. So in a way it makes sense that colorblindness assumes whiteness. *as that would mean that everyone is being treated as white aka, not being discriminated against * It's obviously not good, but i think that could be some of the logic that goes into that?

@@azules2688 white people are discriminated against, too. There is no comparing the magnitude of the harm; however, it still exists.

@@possiblylogical Yes white people are discriminated based on other factors like class and sexuality but not based on their race

Every damn time. Academics should be able to see this coming by now.

It doesn’t help that the left is also terrible at branding.

@@Phreemunny I think our main strategy is "Controversial Strawman!", "Reasonable Questions", "Actually my position is much more nuanced and if you just listened, hey where are you going?". Our worst has to be statements like "Reason and Logic are racist", I get what they mean our understanding of these concepts are tinged with white supremacy in how they are taught and understood but you say that to any normal person and they will look at you like you're from Mars. I've done it before and lost the room completely. Honestly kinda medium is "ACAB". Might set off a few alarm bells for alot of white people, and it should. But I imagine alot of minorities, black, trans and Joseph Joestar, could probably get it real quick. Optics shouldnt just be about white people. Might not help that some minorities are also cops. The best is "Black Lives Matter" and "Defund the Police" for different reasons. Black Lives Matter is a completely correct statement that only someone acting on racial bias or deliberately acting in bad faith could misconstrue. Like you cant look at that and go "wow how controversial" and not be racist. "Defund the Police" is probably another of our best because while it's not uncontroversial it is self explanatory and you dont really have to go to far out of your way to explain it. A completely neutral m bystander can catch it pretty quick and alot of black people or other minorities would be really amicable. "Abolish The Police" is similar and a way harder sell, black or not. Beyond having to educate people on a)systemic reasons why the police are bad, you've got to b)alternatives on it, and c)other things that would need to be abolished. Not saying it's not unnecessary or wrong. Just that you got be a fucking masterclass salesman to get it sold.

EXACTLY. It always been an issue for so long online with people on the left overusing and misusing the terminology. And then it gets antagonized by people on the right 🤦

@@FusionFullForce First rule of rhetoric; know your audience. First rule of online leftism; (50 paragraphs with footnotes and citations)

Very true, all of these hardline categories can leave those who are on mid-points in limbo

This is part of the wider problem because, as wrong as it is, anyone who ia not 100% white is seen as non-white. So if you are half white, then you are considered non-white and will be treated as such. Just look at how half-white Barak Obama was treated when he was president.

I've thought about this a lot as well, and I feel like it's a legacy of a hyper-segregationist culture that had to legally plot people into one of 3 or 4 racial categories. You can see it play with ethnic groups who don't fit well into our racial frameworks as well, such as the shifting racial status of Americans of Middle Eastern decent.

@@TheMightyMcClaw id agree with that, it is a bit easier to classify race when you look at the black & white historical norms, especially when those norms considered "one drop" of blood enough to classify someone as non-white not even 65 years ago

Well said

I kinda wonder to what degree class played into that. I know with white names, there tend to be lower class names, middle class names, and upper class names. I don’t know what middle class black names are, but I think it would be interesting to add the class element to the study. My guess would be that lower class black names receive the most discrimination.

right, i understand that racism can be so subtle its hard to prove, but there is undeniable evidence that it does exist in other facets. Its not a fairy tale.

The resume experiment has been repeated over and over in many metropolitan areas since the 80's, it's sort of an "old reliable." ☹️

@@seanmatthewking for over 10 years I lived in an area known for low-income housing and my maiden name is a common black surname (Ross). I could never get a bite by resume submission. I always had to drop it off personally to get an interview.

A book called 'How to Lie With Statistics' should be read by everyone

Well that sounds very conveniently framed and "confirmation bias"-y. Your last sentence is a non-sequitur, and also not as factually obvious as you seem to imply that it is.The quote is also has a strong starting-with-the-conclusion vibe (aka. how do I justify my urge to be violent?). And finally, what would it even mean for a system to have empathy?

@@alexkaapa One can easily observe that the treatment of poor people, and minorities (particularly blacks) have always been treated as second class citizens, and people with money and who are white are favored. Just like during the founding era of this country of you are not white and land-owning/have money, you are not the focus of America. This has not changed. Also a quick Google search will tell you Kwame Ture advocated for Pan-Africanism, and to return to Africa. His stance of violence, though, is one of common sense. If you are being violently treated by America and her people, is the only way just to try to empathize with the violent oppressor? That's not rational imo. If someone is actively trying to kill me, and has multiple attempts on my well being, and I've already tried to bargain with them, it's time to fight. The current structure has sympathy for white people with money. There is systemic issues that create unnecessary barriers for those who are not white or do not have sufficient funds. For example, 2008 housing crisis, who gets bailed out? The people with money and have power, and predominantly white. Who didn't? The Poor and disproportionately black. This same thing happened the past year. Who are more likely to get audited by the IRS. Who can ask for a 10billion dollar loan to go to space, when they are the richest person in America? Who is more likely to get sentenced to longer sentences for any crime? Who can openly storm the capital while having security let them in, and receive minimal punishment? Who can't ever peacefully protest without getting tear gassed?

@@MrSunshiney you're jumping a little, so i will first only respond to one thing, to avoid rsiking not getting anywhere. most people have been treated worse than second-class citizens for most of history. there was never any grand old time where people were most equal, or rather that time is now. and we have seen that self-correcting structures in our system have worked to improve the state for most people, including the ones you falsely claim are not considered. the fact that wealth and power are what our system favours is really very basic, almost any system would work like that that isn't heavily regulated (which would create a whole wealth of problems of its own). the degree has CLEARLY changed. our world is the most equal it has ever been, and while the western world is indeed dealing with new sources of inequality, particularly pertaining to wealth, framing it as cynically as you have is just not helpful, other than feeding a greivance narrative.

@@alexkaapa @alexkaapa So if I'm getting this correct, your arguing that right now is an acceptable amount of equality to strive for, and we should let the system handle the rest? The system is self-correcting and required no outside intervention? No years and years from multiple activist advocating for change? The system, which is mostly comprised of wealthy white men who prioritize profit over everything else will advocate for improvements in working conditions, civil right, pay equity, and a host of other afflictions that predominantly affect those without power? Am I getting that right? I think your argument boils down to "Oh well, inequality is there, we will let the people in power fix it". During the time when the system was heavily regulated we saw one of the most prosperous times in American history (Post-New Deal), just saying.

@@MrSunshiney ​ no, this is not a "our system is great as it is". i am just pointing out that sentiments like "nothing has changed", "our system only focuses on/sympathises with group x" are not tenable positions. i am NOT saying that the way the system currently works is optimal. the point of pointing this out is so one can ackowledge what works and what doesn't and ditch what doesn't and keep what does. also, when i was talking about "heavily regulated", i was talking totalitarianism, where nothing is left to the system's "automatic" responses etc., but everything is consiously trying to be manipulated to get a desired outcome, which i think we both agree, isn't desirable.

In my experience that is true, however, like with most things, there are the very radical who do and they tend to speak louder over the less radical.

Yes, Marxists and CRT Neo Marxists are constantly fighting over this

never heard anyone say eat the rich before

@@watcher190 I hear it all the time

Even Marx himself said that the boug were prisoners of their own system. His examples were marriage for benefits. Malatesta has a beautiful quote. I can't find it directly but it's something along the lines that the proletariat and the boug have different problems, not better ones.

then i advise you to check out John Mcwhorter and Glenn Loury and Coleman hughes and what they have to say on this CRT abomination . CRT is bs and the "intellectuals " who have defined it refuse to debate intellectuals that are against it . A knight in shining armor is a someone who has never had his metal truly tested thats what CRT representatives are

@@pgrmoja I’m going to disregard your advice, since I didn’t ask for any. Also because I don’t need opinions about CRT; just basic facts. I can form my own opinions from there, thank you. T1J presented what seems to be a nuanced, closer to neutral explanation of what CRT is and isn’t, using info taken from the originators of CRT. You, on the other hand, made your personal bias apparent. I can’t expect you to be objective on the matter.

@@gido9467 I think you should check out what these people have to say. I’m fairly neautral on CRT but I can agree with some of their criticisms like how CRT teaches black people that the system is rigged against them, this is an unhealthy way to look at things. I think statistics and data should be taught but they should also put more of an emphasis on ways to solve these problem rather than just pointing them out.

@@bradtaylor77 Ah, well yes, I suppose saying, “the system is rigged against black people,” would be misleading, and unhelpful; a crude way of explaining systemic racism. I feel like systemic racism is much more nuanced than, “the system is rigged.” Is that what CRT says?

@@gido9467 I would suggest you watch the KZfaq video "Your Neighbors are at War" by PF Jung, he references this video along with others. Its not exactly a neutral stance but it does point out what is wrong with CRT and what would be a better idea.

Second channel T2J

Yesss

@@pamagers a whole T#J universe.

I'm sorry I'm probably putting more on this than what you said but what I read just then was BLACK MAN stay in your lane...why can't HIS Channel talk about anything everything... whatever he's feeling like...I don't know for some reason your statement just kind of rub me the wrong way...so if I'm wrong about what you're implying or you're saying... my bad

@@pkizzy8325 bro they're literally encouraging him to talk about his other interests.

i don't disagree and I don't think I said anything contradictory to this in the video. CRT and other postmodern philosophies are very specifically hostile to the idea of objectivity and often use it as as a bludgeon to dismiss their critics. Facts and data can be misused, this is clear. But some things are true, full stop. And it's our job to figure out what those things are so we can make sense of the world. If this wasn't the case then there would be no reason to participate in science or logical reasoning. CRT very specifically and literally opposes that idea.

@@T1J I don't think there is anything that is true independent of any human filtering -- at least, from the perspective of someone who is a human and so can't think outside of that experience. But, that isn't something to hash out in a youtube comment, or even as a footnote in a youtube video! I think you did a good job introducing CRT overall, I zeroed in on the area that touched on my specific experience (speaking as a white person).

@@T1J I don't think that is what he is saying. he isn't saying that data "can be misused" (of course it can, but isn't the case here), he is saying that data, even in good faith, pass trought some human filters. in real science, there are too many variables, and what you think it's relevant to certains context pass some filters. no one, even the "postmodern philosophers" are saying that 1+1=2 is subjective. 1+1=2 and that is a fact, no one is arguing that. but some "objective" science will have subjective points. ex: standard deviation. how we consider a standart deviation to be significant or not? there's no "objective" way to do it, in some point we have to make a decision, a choice, and it will be subjective, necessarily. or we will make test on a new droug. even in a double blind, we have to choose how many people will participate, the type of people, what we will be monitoring in this peopleetc. if the droug have side effects, the point where it's acceptable, what can be "not good" but still "not unhealthy". even if it standart, we all make a collective decision in where this points is, it still a choice, and could be different and equal valid. even the "post modern philosophers" are not saying something much different than that. just that some "facts" are different in different context. that the context and the point of view are determinant to what is "true". ex. I'm brazillian. what you say it's extremist or radical seems to be pretty normal to me. what is radical to you depend of your point of view, that is different of mine. to americans, anything that envolve Marx is extremist, but isn't. a lot of his work is just normal as Weber, for ex. I can be wrong, but I never see a "post modern author" that is "hostile to the idea of objectivity" in this way...

I suppose this is why the methodology portion of a paper turns out to be the most important part. We need to see and understand the filter. It's too bad it's also the part that people skip the most. Oof, statistical analysis. 😂

@@T1J As another STEM guy (mathematician), I have to disagree. I don't think there'd be no reason to do maths and science if we didn't deem them absolutely objective. As the famous saying in stats goes: "All models are wrong, but some models are useful."

it shouldn't. it is wholly useless on its own. alone, it will inadvertantly foster horrible social cognitive pathologies.

Much like the terms radical, socialist, communist, Marxist, anarchist, etc. These are bad words now and you nearly have to separate your ideas from their label otherwise you’ll be immediately shut down.

@@RosalioRedPanda that's a good thing, just like Nazism is treated with disdain. And now you're going to tell me that real communism and Marxism hasn't really been implemented. Well they can never be, and the theoretical ideas will always fail in the real world because Maxism doesn't take into account how power ALWAYS corrupts.

No, the right has used CRT as an umbrella term for all of the race ideology being taught in schools. They could call it ‘radical social justice’ or ‘wokeness’ but they settled on CRT. Christopher Rufo covers all of this brilliantly Bye it’s not just the right that is against CRT. Many of my leftist friends are opposed to CRT teachings.

I'm a sociologist and every time this happens I wonder why they didn't pick functionalism 🙄I mean if we're throwing darts at a board of social theories...

No, CRT is making the strong statement, i.e. assuming they are white supremacist because they stem from white cultures. Checking whether some of our concepts have cultural baggage is all well and good, but assuming that there is and taking every denial/refutation of that assumption as further evidence for that assumption is definitely not how to move forward. Also, it's not necessarily a red flag that certain ideas were cultivated more/most in certain cultures. "White european philosophers" have done a tremendous job is cultivating our understanding of objectivity/reason etc., almost no other cultures focused on this topic to this depth. That our current understanding of these things is strongly informed by their insights, needn't be an issue at all. Pointing out the cultural basis of something is no argument in and of itself, but it is currently viewed as a "mic drop"-type argument. To take another example, insights into introspection and meditation are also primarily East Asian in origin, are we going to criticise these ideas on the basis of that?

I'm still lost as to what CRT will change for the black community. Or if its intention is to change anything at all. As someone who is very found of rhetoric, modes of persuasion, molding consensus, etc, I do not believe that the conversation will change anything. For instance, I saw a celebrity draw and publish a BLM book for kids. And I also saw that most of the buyers of the book were African Americans. Meaning, that the books aim isn't to persuade another to one's cause, but to express or highlight the struggles of the group to, let them know that they're not alone I guess? I think CRT lacks the emotional, intellectual and persuasive traction needed to change anything. It's just a gospel for the choir. It's a convo that probably needs to be had as long as its here and there, but in terms of molding consensus and persuasive value, its more on the "venting" and "self indulgent" side.

@@alexkaapa those concepts aren't comparable because the Logic and Reason ideology that's seen as the backbone of "Enlightenment thinking" necessarily negates the meditative and introspective ideology of East Asian cultures. This is exactly the issue, seeing ideas as inherently divorced from the culture and ideology they exist in. You cannot fully understand the philosophies of other cultures through the ideology of western lense and vice versa. There is no objectivity or ideology free perspective, and that's the point.

@@alexgaggio2957 this is the ultrasimplistic view of "everything is a social construct, and therefore there is no objectivity", which is obvious bullshit. seeing that everything is a product of culture is not the end of the observation. it is blindingly obvious that there are more or less objective statements about the world. this is why science works. thinking one has in any way nullified something by pointing its cultural origins is lazy and outright erroneous thinking. to show how certain ideas are a function of culture A LOT more has to be shown, e.g. that they don't apply in other cultural contexts and that these cultural contexts have just as useful a framing of the concepts that underlie those ideas. and that enlightenment ideals necessarily negate introspective insights is just demonstrably false, given how science very much can "test" introspective claims

@@alexkaapa mate, read Kuhn and his discussions on Incommensurability. There is no objectivity, good science education with tell you that. There's degrees of usefulness for sure but we cannot know if our observations represent "objective truths" since as subjective beings there's no way to compare. Also naive realism in general is becoming more and more untenable. And no mate, these modes of understanding do negate one another. Just because we can look through an MRI machine and see different blood flows when someone is meditating does not mean we're understanding the the actual ideologies of introspective and meditative practices. What we're instead doing is looking at it through our own particular lense, which is fine but it's not the same. This is also an argument in anthropology, that you cannot understand a culture/ideology/practice until you've experienced it yourself, 3rd person observation has its limits.

Finally someone fucking mentioned that morbid obsession many south Americans have with being white or having European heritage and they feel better than others.

The question is does higher incarceration have to do with white people or does it have to do with Democrats, and the answer if we're speaking factually is Democrats.

And as far as massacres those didn't happen in the north, they happened in the south aka where Democrats lived. Now the south is Republican and Democrats are on the other side, and you can tell that they're on the other side because they act the exact same way. Biden, hullary, Warren, ect all people who were racist southerners in the 60s are now pushing critical race theory. While people in "florida" want to give everyone an equal chance at success and don't judge white OR black people because of their skin. Isn't it funny how things work sometimes?

@@pikachuuprising637 we wuz kangs and shyt give us reparations crack -some random white guy with a normal life and family

You do realize you aren't making much sense right?

We need an animated series of the MN too!

Disclaimer: just graduated and did my undergrad thesis on it! Not claiming to be an expert

This. I'd also like to add that the one thing missing from this video is placing critical theory into context... Where is it used, by whom and why. Critical theory is a requirement for literature majors (it was one of my senior courses) and studying Marx and the different branches of theory really gives people lenses to examine structures or texts. One doesn't have to subscribe to every tenet of every theorist to find the critical lenses useful for conversation. And these conversations are exactly what moves us forward. Finding ideas threatening is the most close-minded, useless enterprise. People on the fringes with radical ideas is exactly how we open up new conversations and eventually make progress.

@@AliciaJohnson17 Was looking for this type of comment thread on here, thanks. One can always expect academics, who are paid and trained to think, professionally, and especially so in the humanities, to have thought of every theoretical nuance and critique that even this fair-minded video puts forward. And yes, this media panic and line of policy, over ideas and teachings, is petty and needless. Theory and past teaching is at such a remove from most people's later professions. Moreover, mere ideas will always find some other way to still survive, especially when banned in public. And anyway, every modern person should agree that this is a primary good, to have as many ideas and factoids as possible floating around, on hand for any random emergency. Critical race theory is mostly just theory. These backlash folk should just let it be, and deal with it if it actually ruins things more concretely some day. Or just preserve it, so they can still get behind it if it some day proves useful in some unforeseen situation.

@@pebblesace67 question: doesn't the fact that you have a degree make you an expert?

+

Oh shit it's Jeremy! I love your content chulito

Racism is baked into Western framework and reasoning.. why is it then that most Americans believe Native Americans were bamboozled and slaughtered, yet very few have heard of the Jamestown Massacre of 1622

Yeah, I didn't know much about CRT and enjoyed T1J's breakdown. But I was like, there's no way one of its core tenets is "logic and reason = bad, because White"??? Thanks for the clarification! That makes a lot more sense

Thank you for the clarification! This is why I always go to the comments of videos like these because there are always a few gems that help me think about things from a different perspective.

@@russellm2555 that's a question of the history curriculum, not philosophical frameworks...

this is a really important point! Rationalist/Emiripcist/Scientific theories and practices have existed outside of the western enlightenment, whether your talking about the very similar (in terms of western science) natural philosophy doctrines of medieval Islamic cultures, the somewhat different classical Chinese scholarly traditions, or the very different observational ecological traditions of indigenous tribal cultures everywhere in the world. In many ways, modern global sciences have long ago abandoned many of the western enlightenment frameworks, but the understanding of science in the popular consciousness is still caught up in something like a 19th century western schema of science as western mans struggle to uncover an immutable, mechanistic truth.

Hey I'm a complete layman so I very much appreciate thus clarification!

"Therefore something like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or even Brown v board would not have happened if white people did not have something to gain." This is what I see as incredibly divisive. It's taking people who really believe in racial equality, and dismiss their support just because of the color of their skin. And this is the type of ideas that the vast majority of people see as harmful in CRT.

Good clarification thanks :)

That rather asummptive of intent

@@josh_final TO´quote Ben Shapiro "facts dont care about your feelings". The truth is that it was small minority of whites that believed in racial equality. The vast majoioryt of whites opposed MLK. Even 2 years after he was killed at least 60% of whites still opposed him and his marches (some numbwra say it was 80). IF the truth and facts is divisive then so be it.

I thought it meant the same thing at first, lmao. Also, that second part was a really good explanation of a nuanced often overlooked part of the issue 👍

The assumption that police violence is only an issue in the Black community is an example of the foolishness of CRT

@@russellm2555 good thing I never said ‘only.’ ‘Disproportionately’ would be the word.

@@russellm2555 lol, read the comment again

Russell M who the heck said police violence was ONLY a problem in the black community? It’s not only a problem for them, other groups deal with it too, it’s just that police violence disproportionately affects black people enough that you can’t properly talk about police violence in America WITHOUT addressing the racist elephant in the room. Seems like you’re the one making assumptions, here.

@Daniel Berger I wasn't defending racism or CRT, I'm not even a full supporter of CRT because I do have qualms about the ultimate academic ethics of some of the postmodernist critiques of liberalism they deploy. Why are you proposing that I made my comment disingenuously, you dont know me or my political philosophy? If there are "hundreds" of videos of classroom abuse then please link them; otherwise it is your good faith I must be forced to call into question.

Also, what is everyone's favorite smash character? I didn't play much after original N64 ... But I could rock that jiggly sleep crit :) also Fox ... Pew pew

The irony is that Intersectionality Theory got the same "brownwashing" by the reactionary right as CRT is getting now. The truth is that most don't want to see anything wrong with the status quo, especially if it means change. That's why they don't invest time actually fully understanding what they critique. Change frightens a lot of people, even more so when their lives are increasingly precarious. So, getting past their emotional barriers - inchoate fear, anger, and resentment - to get them engaging with the reality of how injustice is being perpetuated on others is the real issue. They really have no idea how bad things are and how bad they can get.

@@BigHenFor another irony is that crt is in conflict with intersectionality, which is one quite valid criticism of the theory imo.

I just wanted to point out that race and gender don't work the same way. A black person is on average born poorn than someone who's white. However your sexual orientation or gender identity doesn't make you poor. All the push backs you face are soceital. It makes more sense to tie race issues to class issues than it is to gender with class. Now that doesn't mean you remove the soceital component of it, it just means you deal race issues as both.

@Elemental Pee no it's not. It's being taught to ALL employees at progressive school districts because WE ARE the system

I have the same experience as Ember. They forced us through awkward accidentally racist trainings ("go ask your person of color to fill out this privilege form and compare it to yours") and then did the same racist stuff they always do because they're racists. And the same ableist, middle-class, sexist stuff. We've been working on this for several years and nothing is any better

Maybe, but Marx leaned pretty heavily into the idea that only violent revolution (which is inseparable from its effects on rich humans) would be the only way out.

@@fellinuxvi3541, I would add that the Marxist class critique is not as simple as businessman bad; worker good. And Marx's own position was not as simple as lets choose to use violent means to punish the oppressor class. A big part of the Marxist-Leninist tradition as a whole is recognising that Capitalism is bad for nearly everyone. It's about recognising that capitalists are totally subservient to capital; they aren't the ones making the choices - it's capital itself. Suppose I'm an inventor, and I make a wonderful, cheap, ecologically friendly, labour-saving device that will make everyone's life 10% better - under Capitalism. I'm going to either have to give up control of my idea, directly exploit a workforce, or indirectly exploit a workforce down the supply chain. If I don't, then one of two things will happen; either I won't be able to sufficiently scale up production and my brilliant idea will go to waste until the copy-write expires, or my business will be outcompeted by a rival who gains access to (or replicates) a similar technology. If I don't continue to try and increase my profits and pour more capital into the business, I will be outcompeted; if I don't try and reduce production costs as much as I can, I will be outcompeted, If I don't try to maximise sales, I will be outcompeted. And as a capitalist - when you lose market share, your competitors have the opportunity to grow and centralise. When capital consolidates itself, it becomes more and more powerful, giving that unscrupulous businessman who can make it to the top more agency and more power. Now yes - he might choose to do the nice thing a pull the leaver marked "give 'em fluffy puppies" - instead of the one marked "drill them to the marrow" - but our girlboss/boyboss has been trained by the system, they know that if they pull the nice leaver, they lose market share, and if they pull the horrifying leaver they gain market share. This is why I think the most crucial word in all of Marx's writing is "tendency". Each individual capitalist will have to justify their actions based on their own moral and ethical limits. Still, if you are good enough at lying and are so amoral to functionally care about nothing at all - you'll go far. And even if you're a saint, the system will ratchet you to do more and more explorative practices. So it doesn't matter if you are a morally good capitalist or a morally bad capitalist - it's not you or your personal decisions that are the problem. Engles! By all accounts - lovely boss, morally good capitalist - not a fantastic businessman. Did Marx ever ask him to divest his property or become a hermit? Nope. Is that hypocritical? Nope. But, most of the Majoraritarians in the RSDLP were middle class! Doesn't matter. Even if you are the nicest, kindest capitalist who ever did live, the system requires you to exploit at least a bit; it then gives you the recurring option of failing or exploiting more. To make a genuine change, it would be idealistic to expect the capitalist class to do anything. Instead, Marxism ask us to consider our role in the cycle - where are we contributing to the system - and where (as a class) do we have the power to withdraw that contribution. Then - does it make sense to apply this framework to race? Yes - but not wholesale. (And as far as I can tell, CRT does not do this). Marxism is built on dialectics (the key one referenced above is between the exploiter and producer, each applies opposite force to the object of the commodity - but each is fundamental to its existence, they can not (under the current conditions) be separated without destroying the whole. This is the requirement of violence that Marx speaks of. So what are the dialectics at play in white supremacy? I honestly don't know - I'm trying to work it out, but I am a slow reader with a long reading list, and to quote Mao, "The Marxist philosophy of dialectical materialism has two outstanding characteristics. One is its class nature: it openly avows that dialectical materialism is in the service of the proletariat. The other is its practicality: it emphasises the dependence of theory on practice, emphasises that theory is based on practice and serves practice. " And my theory is currently sorely lacking practice.

@@nithingr4359 I would wager nothing about Marxism-Leninism (or Maoism) ought to be taken seriously other than perhaps, Lenin's critique of banking (which even some libertarians share, so it's not exclusive to him at all). But that's kind of a personal attack, so I'll still go over some points in your comment. The idea that capitalism is "bad" for everyone is an inherently normative and moralistic value judgement that does not apply to Marx's descriptive aspect. He did espouse personal political and normative beliefs (violent revolution) but his main analysis was impersonal and scientific. Arguing that capitalists are not making the choices does not mean it is bad for them. It is strangely dogmatic to believe that making your own choices is always the supreme good. Not to mention, you *are* making choices, capitalists and workers under capitalism are "free" to make their/our own choices, the thing is, we have to weigh the consecquences of those choices. You're not free from consequences, and while we can fix the system to be more fair, we can't do away with consequences. What capitalists experience is freedom, constrained by the material conditions of capitalism, yes, but primitive communists were also constrained by their conditions (and any future attempt at communism would be the same way). If that constriction is grounds for declaring choices 'unfree', then there is no freedom, it's impossible. Let's take your example about this miraculous device. You have an option over all of those things. You can start a co-op. Pay your workers in shares and let them have a vote. That way, you all own the company together and make decisons together. You might argue this is socialism, but bear in mind, this can be done (and is done) under capitalism all thr time, same material conditions apply. But let's see the examples one by one. If you can't scale production, and someone else gains access to similar technology, surely the important thing is that the people get that technology, right? What does it matter if it's not your idea? If someone else sells your idea better, more people will have access to that thing, and roughly, things will be 10% better. Then, you say if you don't continue to invest in your buisenesss to increase profits, you'll be outcompeted, but this isn't really true. If your product satisfies more needs, it will still sell. The economy can hold sustainable niches. Mom and Pop shops for instance, don't have to expand their profits year after year because they fulfill a need niche that is stable. If you have such a revolutionary product (essentially a monopoly) you don't have to care about competition, no monopoly ever does. As long as people have a reason to buy your product, you'll have your maket share. The same is true of your lever analogy. If it were true that nice things are uncompetitive, things would aways get worse under capitalism. However, millennials are the first generation to have it worse than the previous one, up until now, things were looking up (and even then, it was due to deliberate policies that things got worse, not through a natural tendency of the economy). Lead was removed from gasoline in one of the must succesful environmental pieces of legislation in history. Nice things can thrive under capitalism very well. If the system always pushed you to be more exploitative, co-ops would always fail, yet we see them sometimes outperform traditional companies. If we take the logic in this, we can see individual capitalists raise the pay of their workers significantly without detriment, (and this does happen, Kyle and Krystal recently interviewed one such capitalist. Engles could have done more, it is hypocritical to ask less. You then don't elaborate on why it would make sense to apply this to race, but I'd be interested to know your take.

@@fellinuxvi3541 I'd advise giving Mao and Lenin a second look, but then again, I would, wouldn't I? So, to start things - I owe you an apology; lazy writing breeds correction, correction requires time, and time constraints breed lazy writing. If I keep it up, the whole world will be spent correcting my mistakes. So, what in gods name did I mean? (I'm a bit old fashioned when I start a new sentence, I normally mean to change the subject, but - as mentioned 'lazy writing') First, Capitalism having a progressive detrimental effect on the material conditions and (thereby the impact of those material conditions) mental conditions of the majority of people, and the Capitalist being subservient to the wants of capital itself are distinct terms. Capitalism is not bad (necessarily) because it restricts the Capitalist's freedom to do moral good; it is fundamentally a bad system because it demands perpetual capital growth, which in turn requires exploitation, which in turn worsens the material conditions of the greatest majority, including most of the Capitalists (though to a significantly lesser degree). Here is where, in all good conscience, I should have left it. Everything that followed was only elaboration and repetition. So what is left? Well, only unpicking the tangle that remains. I now make myself subservient to your response. A co-op is not a solution, and it is not an exception. Unless you manage to enclose your entire supply chain (communism), your coop's best interest will be in the minimisation of its expenses; this will give preference to the cheaper and predominantly more exploitative suppliers. Yes, it is "nicer" to the direct employees, but you are still harming the material conditions of a great number of people down the supply chain. This also does not exempt you from the competition. Even if your product makes peoples lives 10% better, it still must compete in an open market - a market that will not realistically punish theft and imitation if that imitation and theft are more profitable and hence more exploitative. No technological monopoly holds out for very long if it either oversteps the current 'acceptable' levels of exploitation or if it fails to make a sufficiently aggressive profit. It is here that I should complicate the image a little. I will do this in two ways, first by the introduction of time (a notion surprisingly absent thus far), then by the introduction of the rest of the world (here is where seriously reading some Lenin and Mao might be useful). Once I have done this, I will come to my position and understanding of the relation of CRT and Marxism (as forewarned - it is a little loose as practice is the foundation of good theory, and I have little to no relevant practice and have yet to synthesis theory in reading). It is important to remember that the system of capital first outlined by Marx is a progressive one. Like the flowing of a viscous fluid downhill, if sufficiently thick, it looks static, but if we examine it over time, we see its momentum. To stretch this analogy, we can also see bubbles in the fluid. Individual actions and brief periods of time that contradict the downhill motion of the fluid. But these are the exception and can never be the rule. Instead of changing the martial of Capitalism, they only serve to displace it at the moment. The greatest example of this kind of bubble would be the period of the late 1930s to mid-1970s in America. A period - as you tangentially mentioned - of great growth and prosperity. It is here that we must consider the rest of the world. You see, Marx was not universally correct; he examined a system of Capitalism that had grown around him in the Ruhr valley and the further stage of development of that system in Great Britain and America. The west - in short. What he did not examine was the growing globalisation of the capitalist sphere (at least not fully) - that this system had grown to the point that it could envelope whole civilisations as raw-goods supply companies. It is in this frame that Mao and Lenin saw the equity of the peasant and the worker. That the peasant had (if not identical then) very similar relations to Imperial capital as did the proletariat of the subject state; as a producer of raw goods to be processed by the workers to be sold by the Capitalist. In this regard, we see the bubble of the 1930s to 70s as an exportation of the worst conditions of capital from the imperial core to its peripheries. In this regard, I would ask you to examine the function of small Mom and Pops and Co-ops, not as individual entities - separated from their supply chain; not as fresh saplings, but as small green shoots on an otherwise dead tree. But we should not make too many excuses for Marx, the systemic use of those Imperialist modes was well established in his time, and it is here that I feel the overlap appears. I would suggest that it is useful to think of the progress of slavery, through Jim Crow, to national subservience and co-isolation as comparable to a sort of internal Imperialism. That it functions as a profitable - and therefore predominantly defended - institution within the west as an extension of that same Leninist scene of Imperialism as the separation of the global proletariat and therein the exportation of the worst excesses demanded by capital. In this sense, the Black American Nation exists as an expendable safety valve in the system - whose use and higher level of exploitation is both excused in an ideological sense and maintained by internal institutional borders. In this regard, I would suggest that it is useful to consider the White working class, not as analogues with the capitalist class. But, the relation between these two - often-times artificial separated - classes is closer to the subject proletariat and the imperial proletariat; that the relation between the Black bourgeoisie and the White bourgeoisie is analogous to that of the subject bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie of the imperial metropole. Where I would say that this is insufficient is the fact that these two national identities co-exist. That the system cannot simply ask the imperial proletariat to ignore the existence of the Black working class, it must actively reinforce a sense of moral or material inferiority, and that this requires the extra-capital exploitation of the Black bourgeoisie. So why all the rest of it - couldn't I just have written the first two paragraphs and the last? Yes. But what I am trying to get across is that Marxist class analysis is not about direct forces applied to individual persons, but that the momentum of a class as a whole is found in the balance of posing forces and interests, but that some of those forces are supported by the structure of the system, while others are dis-incentivised. It is not that the White working class is predatory, more that it is (under the rules of the current system) stated to be in its interest to either accept or support white supremacy. It is in the algebra of Marxism that we call this an oppressive class - the subject being the class as a whole within the system, not the individual within that class.

@@nithingr4359 Okay, I like your clarification, it is by far the most eloquent and clear correction I've ever received for a comment. However, I still disagree with its content. Capitalism only 'demands' that growth be infinite in so far as positive measures threaten market shares, but this can be corrected via government policy. Anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws can protect companies from being bought out, and with it, alleviate one of the most pressing needs to further exploitation. Demanding worker representation on the board can also put large and small companies on similar footing, without the risk of labor-friendly companies being outcompeted by the worst ones. Secondly, there is an extremely fluid relationship between exploitation and material conditions. Ever since the massification of credit, people can access goods far greater than their current buying power. And both new optimists like Pinker and his most promiment critics have acknowledged that the middle class has seen substantial increase in their living standards. In fact, the pandemic is the only time since the late 80's that proportional global poverty has increased. If your assesment of capitalism were true, the growth of capital would mean worsening conditions worldwide, but this hasn't actually happened, at least certainly not linearly. While it is true that exploitative products tend to be cheapest, it is not a hard rule. Co-ops can reinvest in themselves, and work with other co-ops. Again, co-ops, which are a fundamentally non-exploitative form of production, can outcompete traditional companies, this puts a serious question mark on wether the assumption that 'the most exploitative will dominate the market' is actually true (it does not seem to be). Marx's conception of history is also very dubious. A mistake which neither Lenin nor Mao (to my knowledge) correct either, is the conclusion that advanced, capitalist nations would revolt first. Marx's predictions conclusively failed, the third period never came, and the only societies to try his ideas were near-feudal, peasant societies, not industrialized, proletariat societies. Moreover, as you mention, they equated them, however, they clearly weren't equal, or we would have seen Maoist and Leninist developments in industrialized society. The root of this misdiagnosis, in my opinion, is a dogmatic belief in capitalism meaning suffering. The root of the argument assumes capitalism has a set of fixed suffering that it can only displace, never reduce. At most, it can be 'contracted' but not eliminated. I disagree with that analysis, and would furthermore argue it is backwards. For example, let's take a look at the Nordic countries, with their exploitatiom or reliance on the global south being greatly exaggerated. Exploitative productions lead to low prices, whereas compensating workers increase prices. However, Nordic countries are designed to sustain a high cost of life, which means pricier products. Countries like the U.S, which exploit workers to a far greater degree, force their workers to buy cheap products, which are more exploitative. I would see then, that suffering is not offshored, but rather reverberates from one country to another. Countries which increase exploitation within their borders increase it abroad, and while countries which reduce it within their borders don't necessarily lessen it abroad, they *can* lessen it abroad. I will admit, however, that your analysis of black/white relationships and imperialism is nothing short of genius. It is definitely the most succint and clever analysis I've ever read on race and Marxism. My only problem with it, isn't really with it, it's with Marxism's ability to deal with the problem, which I don't trust. I understand your distinction between classes and individuals, but I don't think it fully adresses T1J's point. At the end of the day, we're individuals, and classes must use individuals to affect the material world, they cannot do so in the abstract. This essentially forces opressor classes to be predatory, and if they're not, well, there are dimensions the theory just doesn't understand, and T1J is rightful to be critical of it.

It falls into the problem of assuming things that aren't supporting them to be from racism. It runs into the same problem as conservatives with "everything that isn't showing that that america isn't great is biased". Instead its "every that isn't showing that america isn't horrible is biased."

Incremental steps are still steps and every step counts.

Incremental steps while also not getting too drawn into an individualistic approach so that we can address issues at a systemic level where the roots of the problems lie.

and not letting neoliberal corporations pacify movements by co-opting them for the purposes of increasing profits. In the words of Rage Against The Machine, The main attraction distraction Got you number than number than numb. **Empty your pockets son they got you thinkin' that What you need is what they sellin' Make you think that buyin' is rebellin'** From the theaters to malls on every shore The thin line between entertainment and war The front line is everywhere there'll be no shelter here Still burn the nightmare works you pushin' for, I'm a snap of the whip, the true feather to tar Memroy erased and promise gone, Tradin' your history for a V.C.R. Cinema simulated life in trauma Forth Reich culture, Americana Chained to the dream they got you searchin' for The thin line between entertainment and war There'll be no shelter here, The front line is everywhere. X4 Hospitals not profitful The market bulls got pockets full To advertise some hip disguise View the world from American eyes The parmagon keep fiendin' for more The thin line between entertainment and war Fix the need, develop the taste, Buy the products, or get laid to waste Coca-cola was back in the veins of Saigon And Rambo troops We got a dope pair 'a Nikes on Godzilla pure motherfuckin' filler Get your eyes on the real killer, Cinema simulated life in trauma Forth Reich culture, Americana Chained to the dream they got you searchin' for, The thin line between entertainment and war. There'll be no shelter here, The front line is everywhere. X4 American eyes, American eyes, View the world from American eyes, Bury the past, rob us blind, leave nothing behind. X2 Just stare. X4 Or live the nightmare.

I can't speak to issues that disproportionately affect others, rather than me. But I will say, for issues for me? I care less about incremental vs revolution. I want a specifc, actionable thing I can do. And do it. And repeat that process. Not waiting for a full revolution. But doing things to make it come, even if it doesn't come tonight. At least in theory.

@@stoodmuffinpersonal3144 That is certainly understandable. The common thinking is that revolutions are spontaneous, sudden, and without too much planning. It’s commonly thought that they are sparked without a specific group working day in and day out to get us there. This is absolutely wrong. There’s work going on RIGHT NOW that is getting us closer to revolution AND making those incremental gains. The left has a wide array of beliefs and people with different approaches and talents. While you or I may think that another person’s approach is inefficient, we shouldn’t discount and discourage them. Ultimately, we all want relatively the same thing. Incremental vs revolutionary steps to change the system isn’t a binary choice. Y’allidarity, Your favorite Texas Marxist 🤠 ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯

I think this is an interesting distinction when talking about the Marxist influence of CRT. The idea that "Oppressor = Bad" in the case of CRT would essentially be saying "White people = bad", which I would imagine most white people wouldn't be totally on board with. However, by trying to take an honest inventory of who's among the oppressed and who's among the oppressor classes as objectively as possible, it might make the conversation easier for those who find themselves in the oppressor class. Ultimately, the goal is to liberate all people from an oppressive system, right? Or am I missing the point?

@@PenStab Exactly the point. If you look at the history of what "whiteness" even is, you'll find that it is rooted in racism and the desire to keep black people oppressed by uniting all European identities and placing them highest on an arbitrary racial hierarchy. So yes, it is to liberate people from the oppressive system of racism that leads to some white people internalizing racist ideology because of "white" identity. And that's only one example of where CRT can be applied.

@@lancewalker2595 Not sure what you mean by that. There are some pretty key distinctions between Marxists and non-Marxists. Many people that don't claim the label of Marxism could most certainly be classified as such if their analyses of society aligns with the material dialectic for example. Marxism is an abstract lens of analysis but one that definitely has legitimate signifiers.

No, your example is not an application of CRT. What you are describing is that historical injustices can have an effect over long periods of time, but not necessarily. That this exists is not new and no critic of CRT who has even a little brain in his head would deny it. We in Germany have a whole series of white immigrants with different social and cultural backgrounds. What they all have in common is that they came to Germany without any assets. Nevertheless, the social camp of the different immigrant groups is very different after a few years. By the way, the same is true for the native German population after the war. In particular, the boom years after the wars shook up the old social hierarchy. No, the money you got from your grandfather is not the reason why you have house and land wealth today. Nor your skin color, but the mentality, the values, the attitudes that you were given in your family have led to the fact that your grandfather and also you have seized the opportunities offered to you. Besides, who then says that it is desirable to own a house? Doesn't that have to do with your family and your culture of origin? Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Same here. Maybe a second channel is the way to go about things?

Do try to be understanding, his view of CRT is warped, in sure he means well!

@@OlaAremu It's really fucking hard sometimes. It was practically impossible last year.

There is a group called the Freedom Georgoa Initiative that wants to create their own city of just black people. So yes, your dad is right that SOME people want to create their own segregated safe spaces: www.the-sun.com/news/1475654/freedom-georgia-black-families-trolled-segregation/

@@josh_final I hope you realize self-segregation is different from forced segregation. Self-segregation can be a means of survival and liberation for some when those in power are making things a living hell. Of course the goal is to ensure liberation is achieved without needing to self-segregate, but you can hardly blame anyone for wanting to do this when it may be the only chance to experience some semblence of freedom. Until you have been there, you don't get a say. I'm Black and trans and fear for my life every damn day. Best believe I would self-segregate if my life's work ends up not coming to fruition.

Right? The guy who said 'white moderates' are more hostile than hate groups clearly 'doesn't believe in seeing race' /s

Exactly. If Dr. King had just stuck to that speech, and didn't start to mention reparations and responsibilities, they never would have assassinated him.

The white washing people have done to his legacy and causes is so disguising. 😤🤮

It's really sad to see the whitewashing of such amazing radical people.

@@carbine090909 They assassinated him because he was getting too socialist for the Man's taste. Just listen to the last speech he gave before his death, it's pretty revealing.

Being what, Eskimo?

@@seanmatthewking Bingo!

@@seanmatthewking Yes. Eskimo is considered a derogatory name by the Inuit people. It’s a name thrust upon the native people of the Arctic instead of one chosen by them and has negative connotations linked to it.

Why would a form of Marxism not be divisive in America?

@@ironmagma What do you mean by “form of Marxism,” and what in particular is your issue with it? Ending slavery was divisive, so I don’t think that’s a great way to evaluate an idea.

@@ironmagma What does "a form of Marxism" mean? They called Obama a Marxist, socialist, communist.....every evil Red Scare -ist in the book. The fact that this one is Marxist-adjacent doesn't give the conservatives a good excuse. They've been crying foul since Reagan.

@@seanmatthewking Critical Race Theory is derived from Critical Theory, which is the Western-Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School (circa 1937 and the likes of Horkheimer, Fromm, and Marcuse). In other words, it's literally a form Marxism.

"JUST LET US DO COMMUNISM" -leftist argumentation theory

The conversation needs to address the actual thinking around whether or not the person we are talking to believes that reversing parties in an oppressive relationship is the solution to the problem or not. I think it's somewhat a predictable outcome for us to reinforce that retaliatory idea in the safety of our in-groups and this can lead to actions and decisions that reinforce that thinking, creating an equally predictable and usually draconian backlash from the oppressors.

Fun Fact: Most Critical Theory proponents are very much in a feud with Critical Race theory proponents, as the former are more concerned with antisemitism and the latter with anti-PoC racism, and they often have pet arguments like those over Israel

And you seem the type of appreciably fair dude who would play Falco. Any chance of a video breaking down the toxicity of the smash community?