Dude just explained one of the most controversial, lightning-rod issues as calmly as explaining how to fix a flat tire. Kudos brother, you are _really_ good at explaining things. I was afraid to even click the video and after I watched it I felt calmer and much more informed.
Italy is 50 miles from Africa…Spain is technically less than 10 miles from Africa ... People in the Mediterranean area have been mixing for 100,000 years ... Former slaves in north and south and central America have been mixing for 400+ years ... NOW, If someone is biracial do they get all the reparations? if someone is 1/4 Black do they get 1/4 reparations, if someone is 10% Black do they get 10% reparations? my DNA test said I was one percent Black. This video seems extremely racist…Tell me how I might be wrong.
@@arthurallenbrown1305 wrong video! He's not debating that here. I'm sure there's some wokeies you can engage with on another video if it's that important to you.
Capitalist corporations promote identity politics. Ryan tells his gullible audience that identity politics is "Marxism". You may be calmer but you are the opposite of "informed".
@@Conserpov the corporations are being forced by the political movement. Any corporations that don't yield to leftism get decimated. Comply or die, just like conservative policing.
What makes Ryan's videos so effective is that he is not reckless with his vocabulary; every word has boundaries to it's meaning. If we let words become too fluid we are sacrificing our capabilities of rational discussion and thereby stunting our ability to find truth.
I can think of two words that have become far too fluid of late, "Man" & "Woman" .. pretty simple words on their own, but apparently full "other meanings" . . Apparently!!
_...we are sacrificing our capabilities of rational discussion..._ This is intended since rationality is a "evil male white" value. 😎 Like science, of course. PoC don't need science and search for the truth, they already know it. Like the Holy Mother Church in medieval times. Welcome to the dork ages.
@@stuartkeithguitars4251 if you’re right then he isn’t doing a very good job of it. He is clearly going against the mainstream media. I listened to NPR spend an hour talking about how CRT is simply teaching our children factual history. They left absolutely everything that this guy said out of the discussion.
@@stuartkeithguitars4251 dude you’re confused. He’s clearly criticizing Marxism in his other videos. Most CRT supporters don’t want to admit it comes from Marxism. This guy reveals how it came from Marxism.
It’s pretty cult like ngl. Actually, thinking about it, a lot of CRT seems like a cult. It’s fanatical, it’s demands loyalty, it claims it will make its adherents and society “better” without explaining how, etc. etc.
@@karenmiller8620Following religion teaching can lead to good results. Buddha's karma rule is a good examplem Critical Race theory's ideas just lead to more segregation and racism.
@@chuchu5946believe in karma might make you act I a good way but it might also make you have unrealistic expecting since you have a distorded idea of how the world works.If you believe justice happens on itself you don't seek for it.
@@karenmiller8620Depends the word culture has the root word "cult" in it. According to standard historical facts along with archeological evidence cults or religious systems actually acted as a positive force of progress in the technological and inventive way a civilization developed. Then in other instances it could cause a destruction of a kingdom like when the selfish Pharoah Akhenaten reigned over Egypt and threw out its old polytheistic religion so he and his own ideas could be venerated which also caused Egypt to go into economic crisis because the previous religious view brought the trade flowing in and essentially ran ancient Egypt more successfully than Akkenatens more brutal cult system. Philosophy for today is the same thing but just not always with a spiritual or supernatural outlook. Philosophies like Marxist theory literally expressing zero tolerance for any philosophy than its own. This attitude is very cruel and can actually drive oppression.
There is a document like that called the Gospel or for non believers the Universal Declaration on Human. Rights authored by nations of the world in just 2 pages. This needs to be taught in schools first before CRT who's authors and message are a conflict mystery mess..
@@toldyouso5588 I question whether CRT is actually "taught" in schools at all. Maybe some particular university classes, but not in most high schools or grade schools. Of course, most U.S. states set up curricula for public schools. Also, local school districts add their own ideas to that. It seems what's really happening here is a concern about "revisionist history' and a fear of actually learning more facts about our past. Most lower-grade schools don't get into the details of history - there's no time for it at that level. Hell, I'm 77 and still learning details about how our Constitution was formed, how WWII started, and numerous other events in history that were only glossed over in elementary and high school. I went to art school, not college, then was drafted (Vietnam), then work, marriage, kids, etc. Who has time for more education during those days? Now we get it fed to us 24/7 from all directions. It's a minefield of contrary, and often controversial, information that takes hours to week through.
this is all i can really afford to give you but this is awesome what you’re doing and i hope you get to continue making these videos. they’re so well put together and researched and i thoroughly enjoy watching them. keep it up!
Thank you for not trying to tell me how I should feel and just giving me information to allow me to make my own decisions. This almost never happens these days
It’s also the most dangerous thing to a CRT believer. It threatens the success of their optics and thereby threatens them achieving their goals. The best argument against CRT is CRT itself.
@@trigjones wow. Who said I believe in CRT? As someone that has studied CRT for over 7 years, I do not find it a sound theory. I simply think that charlatans, like this guy, and most American liberals and conservatives don't know how to engage critical theory - mostly because we don't have a functional public education system and universities have become largely unachievable for most working class folk. I myself am a critic of CRT, I just dislike when bad faith discussions are had about any topic and this is a total bad faith video.
@@marcodemocracy10 Point out any part of it that you think is unfaithful, timestamp with notes ideally, so that there's more to what you're saying than a broad accusation...
''sociology professor we all wish we had in college.'' Mr supercuck claiming ''white supremacy'' ova hea, don't think so! I'd LOVE to hear the HONEST opinion of ''Critical theorists'' about ARAB or Ottoman slavery, millions of BLACK men castrated for their M0h4mmedan/islamic overlords, European KIDS brainwashed to fight their former country as slavesoldiers. Probably that's ''not as bad because the perpetrators aren't completely white'' according to them.
Dude, I love your videos. No judgements, no biases, only information. I still double check the information you give which I encourage everyone else to do if you truly want to be an individual thinker.
I agree. The only way to be a true objective thinker is to read up on all sides. I like clear explanations as Ryan did on CRT, and comparative reading of what others claim. CANNOT stand reading material that hurl abusive, judgemental attitudes about an author and their writings, who also offer no logical alternative.
@@Verna-m3iI agree. That's why when I have a debate with someone, the first thing I do is ask them to steel man my position in the most good faith way as possible and I will do the same for theirs. If you can't accurately convey what the other person is arguing, then you can form good counter arguments.
I’m a left leaning person, and something about CRT would rub me the wrong way, but I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt since many of the problems they identify are true and need to be solved, however in this video I’ve come to realize I’m whole heartedly in disagreement with their philosophy, and seems like a slippery slope to fascism. Their Utopia sounds like it would be nightmare.
The dictionary definition of racism is the discrimination of another group of people based solely on their recial identity. CRT is a tool that strives to fight racism by favouring certain groups and discriminating on the basis of their race. So to fight racial bias we as a society must become racially biased. Fun stuff.
The philosophy is to end institutional bias, I doubt you are against that. I have studied, used, and taught CRT for 30 years and I am completely satisfied with its goals, approach, and integrity. In the 80s I admit I was not happy with its lack of focus, on individual acts of racism and individual racist, but over the years I have come to appreciate the larger impact realized by focusing on institutional bias. This presenters sophmoric "book report" is not CRT. CRT is not Marxism or Post Modernism or any other fancy 'ism', it is simply a framework for ferreting out institutional bias; anything to the contrary is counterfeit.
@@mackmckinney5206 No, that a a persuasion that you use to justify using it. Just like a mormon would claim that they are for using the bible to justify their beliefs, when its clearly something else.
@@TimberWulfIsHere no, it is not a persuasion, your claIIm is just your excuse for justifying your antagonism. I feel absolutely no need to persuade doubters like you.
I feel like it becomes a bit difficult to take this theory seriously when it starts off by rejecting the notion of objectivity and not being biased. Like, those aren't somehow specifically white aspects of academia, that's just academia, period. The standards of objectivity are there because academia stops delivering when you throw those notions our the window. It's like saying "I want to revolutionize the world of boat building and I shall start by refuting the notion that boats ought to be vessels built to be able to cross large bodies of water. Instead, I want to promote a stationary vessel that is meant to be submerged deep under water." Congratulations, you just invented the diving bell, but that's simply not a boat. Subjective writing with deliberate, political goals does exist, of course. But that falls under either activism or philosophy. Another big issue is in redefining terms that are conmonly associated with something else. If you are calling a person who never harboured any ill intent or prejudice towards others over their ethnicity racist for going about their life, then you are gonna lose most people. If you call Morgan Freeman a white person for thriving within the system and advocating for colour blindness, people are gonna call you crazy. I'm not one of those nutters who think CRT is somehow a threat to the national integrity of the United States, but it does have an air of echo chamber self-gratification. Which isn't surprising, considering all academic standards where explicitly thrown overboard right at the start for being too white.
The hysteria around CRT has only exposed how far-right talking points have become mainstream. Student-Graduates and officer-cadets have been reading about CRT for decades, and no one noticed. The alt-right use the same tactics that were used to discredit and distort the Civil Rights Movement and the Black Panthers.
"I'm not one of those nutters who think CRT is somehow a threat to the national integrity of the United States, but it does have an air of echo chamber self-gratification." Oh, is it a nation destroyer? I don't know, but it certainly is quite divisive... which per definition works against national integrity.
"If you are calling a person who never harboured any ill intent or prejudice towards others over their ethnicity racist for going about their life, then you are gonna lose most people." That's not what CRT does. Why do you even think that?
Originally Marxism was about the class struggle. Now it's the race struggle but same modus operandi. "We are not waging war against individual persons. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. During the investigation, do not look for evidence that the accused acted in deed or word against Soviet power. The first questions that you ought to put are: To what class does he belong? What is his origin? What is his education or profession? And it is these questions that ought to determine the fate of the accused. In this lies the significance and essence of the Red Terror." Martin Latsis, chief of the Ukrainian Cheka, in the newspaper 'Krasny Terror' ('Red Terror', No. 1, Kazan, 1 November 1918
No, it is still about class struggle. Are you american? One core principle of Marxism is internationalism so I dont understand how Marxism can be about race?
If you take this ideology to its logical conclusion ... It leads to the balkanization of the United States, into separate countries ... divided into skin colour ... Which is why I've changed my mind about this, thanks to this information. CRT is indeed anti-American. Basically the idea that we can not all or certainly a lot of us ... Come together to become one .... Incorporating our various histories into a shared amalgam ... Is in deed a non-American idea. It's like suggesting a couple could be married but live separate lives? And then raise kids that had to choose what parent they loved more. No wonder these people are so mean and nasty.
@@jimgeistlinger3545 I think many of us have come to the same conclusion. It's been weaponized to be spread out like a poison, attacking even the innocent in it's path of destruction. The absolute denial of people's character as individuals is terribly toxic.
Oh it's not hard to imagine at all. Just thonk of Germany during the late 30's and early 40's. And no, that's not being hyperbolic. Critical Race Theory os litteraly just National Socialism for black people.
Props to this guy for sacrificing so many of his neurons swimming through this sea of intellectual bullshit to deliver us this comprehensive and politically neutral video! A sincere thank you, my man!
Loved the video. I'm having a hard time understanding why academics being neutral, objective and balanced is anything but desirable. Being NOB does not preclude discussions of how subtle racism undermines our society. It does not preclude feeling that racism has caused deep divides on our country, and that big improvements are worth working for. To me NOB is the definition of true academia. And a worthy goal of every thinking person.
Yeah I’m having a hard time understanding why being NOB is bad and is only a facet of white culture when it certainly seems like the best method in pursuits of truth
@@spookypig8043the point is that people -especially white people - have a skewed perception of what "neutral, objective and balanced" is. Neutral, objective and balanced cannot exist when every culture/person within a culture has some sort of bias. This might be hard to stomach since people want to find a quick and easy solution for issues like racism - often through the guise of being neutral, objective and balanced, but in reality this stance is impossible to obtain. This doesn't meant throwing facts and evidence and understand your debate etc. away, that is silly, but it does mean that trying to act as an academic absolute - one who is neutral, objective and balanced - isn't particularly helpful. Culture can not be viewed through an NOB lense.
@@spookypig8043 "NOB is bad" is a concept propagated by the ruling class to obfuscate the material reality. When the working class realises that they all live in a material reality and therefore share common interests (e.g. leading meaningful lives) they will throw out the parasites and fully enjoy the fruits of their labour. So the parasites are trying to delay that realisation.
The counter-argument amounts to "You can't be perfectly neutral, objective, and balanced. So why even try?" It's like saying "why bother having morals?" b/c you will fail sometimes.
@Freddie Jones He actually wasn’t wrong at all. He may have been quite crass and unnecessarily aggressive in terms of his response, but what he said was indeed factual. CRT is very much rooted in Marxist thought(though it replaces class with racial identity) in that it views everything through the dynamics of power and believes that all societal issues and conflicts involving people can all easily be broken down into those who are either the oppressed or the oppressor. Another very influential figure for critical race theorists was a man named Herbert Marcuse and in particular his 1965 essay entitled ‘Repressive Tolerance’.
@Freddie Jones says "it doesn't say crt has anything to do with marxism in Wikipedia." Oh..... Wikipedia 'Critical race theory" second paragraph it says: 'CRT is grounded in *critical theory[8]* and draws from thinkers such as Antonio Gramsci" References [8] Crenshaw, Kimberlé; Gotanda, Neil; Peller, Gary; Thomas, Kendall, eds. (1995). Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement. New York: The New Press. ISBN 978-1565842717. Wikipedia " *Critical Theory* " second paragraph: "In sociology and political philosophy, "Critical Theory" means the Western-*Marxist* philosophy of the Frankfurt School, developed in Germany in the 1930s and drawing on the ideas of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud... Modern critical theory has also been influenced by György Lukács and Antonio Gramsci," Who are Lukács and Gramsci? Hungarian and Italian *Marxists* !!! ;^D
The Truth must be taught about America's History to All by Scholarly Righteous Individuals Period! America's historical falsehood must end, it remains unfair and unjust to Blacks, Whites and to People of Color.
@@debrawilliams2781 yes truth must be taught together with forgiveness, color blinded ness and unity. Perpretrating victimhoodand control must be eradicated as we teach the truth. MLK is a good example . Without this we continue to perpetuate the cycle of oppression and control
Wow came here to learn more and now I’m against critical race theory, anything that tells you not to approach academia in a neutral or balanced view is not worth being taught.
I came here because everyone who agrees with this always describes it in ridiculously vague terms. Now I see why. It's literally just a new form of racism trying to weasel it's way into our schools and government.
Nope, you both missed the thing. There is no "don't approach academia in a neutral or balanced view" - the point is that we don't and can't. That's not a thing in reach for any individual. CRT is saying "don't treat academia that way because it isn't." The academia we have is largely white-biased academia. The difference is that, in being aware of this, you can actually run closer to true neutrality. That is the aim, not the other way around. As for CRT being vague, well... it's a philosophical framework. The un-vague specifics will come from those using CRT to observe, critique and correct our institutions. Most theory comes off this way, vague to those who aren't using it and haven't yet seen specific prescriptions birthed from the theory. I'm totally lost on how you get to "a new form of racism trying to weasel...", you're saying "acknowledging that racism exists is its own form of racism"? CRT is literally "racism does exist, let's pay attention to it and try to counterbalance its effects." How is that racist? Is there some specific line that you're seeing as racist?
I think CRT defense for this approach is that it believes race should be a higher level concept before institutions. Therefore it supersedes the structure of academia, academia when under its current umbrella.
@@realJimMarshall it is not racism but a set of lense to better identify racism and to its benefit it offers some possible resolution to the problem that we all know or don't know that we face.
@@jacobunderwood4957 I disagree with your assessment. And so does the creator of this video apparently. No one would argue that racism doesn't exist. No one would argue that we shouldn't point out racism where it exists. At least, no one that isn't actually racist. The issue people have with CRT goes way beyond what you describe here. Vague terms. No actually successful application. No long term outlook. Changing the definition of racism to fit a political agenda. The idea that people are trying to teach our children to always view others through a racial lens. The proposal of re-segregation. The list goes on. You are being intellectually dishonest by boiling CRT down to 'we're just trying to help'. I believe that some people do just want to help. But there are a whole lot of people who just want to see the world burn. A lot of what I mentioned, any normal person would view as 'racist'. Especially because we'd be using the traditional definition of 'racism'. Not the version of racism that was created to push an ideological slant.
There is a very high risk to raising race consciousness among the public at large and applying oppressed/oppressor labels based on race. So far, there is a predictable resentment growing among whites of the lower economic classes to being called “privileged”. That resentment is quickly turning to anger which will be easily manipulated into violence if there is not a course change.
“Look what you made us do” ? The oppressor oppressed dynamic was not created by people pushing critical race theory. Their point is to dismantle it. If you don’t quite understand i would go watch “some more news” and their videos about systemic racism. Or shauns video about white supremacy
I don't claim to be color-blind, I just don't see race as a defining characteristic when determining someone's value as a person. I would hate to think what that makes me.
Your belief is what i think as the right approach to race question. Accept it. But dont discriminate on ground of race. But dont pretend to be colour blind.
@@zodinthara7925 This. 100%. A barbershop is a good example. Everyone pays the same for a haircut and a trim, everyone is allowed to have one, but different races have different hair textures and styles. You cant cut trim and style an african-american persons hair with the same products and techniques as a white persons hair, they *are different* and need to be approached accordingly, no amount of "color-blindness" will ever change that. But informing yourself about a culture and finding non-discriminitory ways to accept and accommodate for it, can help make life easier for everyone.
I honestly lived my whole live beein colorblind in the meaning that i give a shit what your race is. I don't care i see you as an individuum.i might be interested in your culture and lifestyle but your origins never account what makes you an individual. i think this is the most fairest approach out there...everyone i ever talked too agreed and was really happy with the way i treated them. But now suddenly this type of behaviour is supposed to be racist...and instead we are supposed to be super focussed on race and judge people based on it? Blacks are always at a disadvantage...whites are always priviledged... come on wtf...you can't be serious about this this is literally the definition of racism in its true meaning (and not the bullshit one people are trying to make)
Agree. But it will not because it doesn't work with the fast-food narrative "white supremacy, every white person is racist, every non-white person is a victim".
Google owns RUclips and like every other Fortune 500 company they are pushing the same geopolitical (globalist) narrative. What they promote strikes me as an awkward marriage between Neo Marxism and Fascism. No doubt their "ML Fairness" algorithms are effective at impeding relevant information from reaching the masses. Besides, how many people really care about the world around them enough to investigate political philosophy.
Actually it attacks the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of every individual which the communist (Soviets) object to wanting collective human rights, they mean the government says what and which rights, communist herd mentality.
The basic concept of the definition of racism is applying stereotypes to individuals based on belonging to a group based on race or color. This along with monolithic attitudes towards race in that everyone within that category has to think like what the stereotype dictates.
No it isn't. Race is a science that white europeans came up with, and they invented it with the express purpose of explaining why europeans should be on top, and it was an integral part of society building in america and to a lesser extent europe. Racism is just that science applied.
@@jdenmark1287 no you're actually right racism was invented by black people to stay slaves in 1750 when white people taught them how to farm and dig wells and took them on luxury cruises across the atlantic
I really appreciate how calm you are while laying this stuff out. It's hard to process these perspectives without feeling a little emotional for anyone who also cares about reality and isn't naturally wired to be so focused on race.
Right!? I consider myself a very self aware person, however I can't help but get my blood pressure up when ever ithis sort of thing comes up in conversation!
I want critical height theory!! I’ve been vertically challenged all my life and this oppressive hieghtriachry must answer for all the people who are taller than me. I need a short safe space.
Ignoring your smug fuckery, it's actually an interesting point that rules laws norms and more are always set by first the most powerful and second, the majority. But....keep up the trolling you tool!
First of all, I did like the video. It was rather fair and informative without being terribly misleading. I do not wish for anyone to think that I am being critical of this video. I am not. However, to truly understand CRT, one MUST begin with the true origin of CRT being a legal argument hypothetical. Please allow that to sink in for a moment. It was strictly designed for hypothetical legal discussions in a law school. It was devised for the training of lawyers. And when utilized in mock trials, it has failed miserably since the late 1960. It was Calmore, Crenshaw, and Kendi that stole the concept and spun it into a social narrative, complete with definitions of new term that they invented themselves to support the transfer from law school hypothetical to highly radicalized societal narrative. CRT as a societal theory is a lie from the beginning. Their interpretation is based on a platform of pure racism directly strictly at caucasians. And as has been proven repeatedly in mock trials for over 50 years, CRT does NOT stand up in court. It is just a new form of prejudice and an excuse to perpetuate racial hatred. I bid you peace.
At 17:26, he reads a passage about how it has became so integrated into society that people don't even realise it. Kentaji Brown Jackson said in a 2015 lecture "I also try to convince my students that sentencing is just plain interesting on an intellectual level, in part because it melds together myriad types of law - criminal law, of course, but also administrative law, constitutional law, critical race theory, negotiations and, to some extent, even contracts." and now she has been comfirmed into the SCOTUS. CRT may soon stand up in court, as many Critical Race Theorists are and already have infiltrated the judicial system. Only the future can tell.
So, in a nutshell, by their personal experience and subjective opinions they consider themselves oppressed. The oppression is so all encompassing the only way to remove it is to completely deconstruct present society and they are actively working towards that end. The present system will be replaced by... we're not sure yet but we'll know it when we see it. Further, all of the oppressed people working for change will be in total agreement on the nature of the currently undefined replacement society. It's laughable right up to the point where they start beating and shooting those who disagree.
Not to mention the claim that those in the minority are born with an innate 'authentic' culture, that their own culture is not the result of historical events in their own home country, and as much a construct as 'white' culture is.
Hhhmmm who else wants a constant struggle? Have you herd the term jihad? Kamf? 9f the course the sources why a moder westerner has heard those are pretty bad. In truth they are just words in different languages but we know them bc so bad people called for a similar struggle and it has led to extremism and death.
@@zionbrin1 yeah, so Marxism leading to race-nationalism aimed predominantly at the youth in order to create something akin to a new world order? Where have we heard that before?
I believe that would be "argument from authority." And as with any use of a logical fallacy, you are now disqualified from this debate. "Weak minds use other people's words" -- Mark Twain 🙄
Outstanding summary. As a CPA that happens to be black, I've been exposed to and have had conversations with several individuals that support and advance "critical race theory". It seems reasonable to test your theory in a limited way to determine something more than a "theory" prior to general application. They want a "theory" accepted without any evidence of the potential result. That's unwise in most endeavors. Also, you've expressed the summary of what I've experienced in conversations with them. I think you're in the 90%++ accuracy range on this. Also, I believe there's evidence of a strong Marxist movement among blacks from the late 1800's and Marxism is not an uncommon goal of many blacks I've known. I believe you've "nailed it". Thanks for the video and saving me time researching it myself.👍
@@BillyOcean336 I have researched it myself, and Ryan is correct about CRT being retreaded revolutionary Marxism based on race instead of class. And since it is race based, it's actually akin to National Socialism and reminiscent of ANC philosophy - and we've seen how well that has worked out in South Africa and Zimbabwe.
@@mikeguilmette776 calling CRT Marxism is absolutist. Like any academic discipline, it draws from multiple theories. MLK was considered a communist by his detractors in his time.
Marxism is the key - that's why the ruling class tries to derail it. Read Marx, Engels and Lenin and life will get better for everyone, except for loan sharks and such.
8:55 I think this is a crucial misunderstanding. To be politically motivated in academia does not mean you "slant your academic findings". It means your research project aims at finding knowledge that makes a certain social transformation possible. So for example, if I am a feminist scholar, I might do research into sexual assault and what can prevent it. My goal with this research is political: I aim to change society such that less sexual assault happens. This does not however mean that I am in any way compromising my academic integrity. The difference is often poorly understood in conservative circles, so it is really worth stressing this.
Watch his video on post modernism, he covers how the social justice movement uses social deconstructionism to silence language and studies they deem counter productive to their agenda.
@@Hhhhhhhhjdjjdd I have watched it and I can't find any clear claim of his. It's kindoff nasty how he makes these videos tbh. Making lot's of true statements, and then sprinkling in these wild leaps that are completely unfounded.
I’m a little lost on how he could read the passage he highlighted and make the statement he did. It’s not a case of happening to not read this specific passage, and missing it. He went to the effort of boxing it in red and holding it up. But… it doesn’t say a single thing about slanting results or findings. It just says they want to get paid for work that also pursues political goals. Like choosing to work at a locally owned rather than corporate retail store, or pursue an engineering job in clean energy development rather than oil and gas. Or, in academia, an epidemiologist might study some source of systemic health inequality like redlining’s generational impact on doctor access rather than taking a position in pharmaco-epi at Merk.
@TFU Studios Critical race theorists and black supremacists hate the rule of law, and hate the fact that white wrote the laws and made the principles that started this great country that has more black millionaires than anywhere in the world. Somehow being a white law make equates to society being racist regardless of the laws the support.
The major flaw in this theory is the simple fact that "I" am not "my body". Everything about this theory assumes that if "I" have a body that a culture and value set and thus a way of thinking automatically comes along with my body.
@@Baman21 I agree that a lack of indiviuality is the weak point of this system. The strength of a system is in how well it scales. A system such as a form of government should exist to be of benefit to the individual and not just a system to benefit the system. Without benefit to the foundation of a system a system will fall apart under it's own complexity. As we are collections of individuals the systems we create should benifit indiviuality this in turn can create individuals who can create systems that are of greater benefit and becomes a positive feedback loop. The system in the video ignores the basic of indiviuality and skips directly to group this ignores the foundation of what a group exists for in the first place. It is a *great* system if you are an individual who wishes to control groups. I can see great benefit in that.
Which demonstrates the futility of CRT . It’s all BS . It’s all collective nonsense. And it’s funny the CRT is based on philosophies of - white people .
@@Conserpov I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you're going to bother writing empty comments and responding to questions without actually answering them, perhaps you should "go outside and touch grass."
@@joshuabela5374 Ph.D. academics and law professors over the last 60 years of jurisprudential discourse. Start with "Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement." Read all of it. Read everything they reference and footnote. Continue doing that until you have read as many of them as are still available. Then look for the next writings of all the major authors of the book and read those the same way. Keep doing this until you find the last book actually written by a knowledgeable academic on the subject. Then go back and watch this again. And you'll understand just how amateurish and incomplete it is.
This was amazing. You have encapsulated CRT in a 20 minute video without strawmanning, and with crediting original sources. ALL parents and teachers must watch this.
Interesting that you would mention 'straw manning', since that is exactly what the presenter did; he imagined all of these boogiemen, such as critical theory, marxism, modernism, post modernism then slayed them as his critique; CRT is none of those things, it just identifies disparity and remediates it.
Parents and teachers don't need to watch this as Critical Race Theory only exists in a advanced academic sense. Children are not exposed to most lofty academic debates, instead they are either not taught about race at all or instead are introduced to basic racial concepts and race history which is not them having anything to do with CRT.
Thanks! This was very well done. This is the second of your videos that I’ve watched, and is the kind of inflammable, and seemingly non-manipulative, content so many of us are so desperate to hear.
@Russ Olson I was going to ask you to give examples of how this is manipulative, but I first checked the publication dates of the five sources he uses, based on your comment that all his sources are 40 years old. Aside from "Traditional and Critical Theory" by Max Horkheimer (1937), the remainder of his sources are from 1996 - 2019. And this isn't an interview channel, so your argument that he didn't Interview anyone current seem deceptive. So now I wouldn't trust a thing you say.
There is a certain "Alice in Wonderland " quality to CRT (especially in building the airplane while already flying it, as it were) This is NOT a criticism of you, Ryan Chapman. To the contrary, your approach helped clarify the paradoxical nature of some parts of the theory, such as , if you are not A you are B, but if you are using the language of A, it's because you are oppressed into submission to think like A. (or something like it).The "Alice" quality I refer to is in her conversation with Humpty Dumpty, which goes like this: -- don't know what you you mean by "glory," "Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled . contemptuously 'of course you don't--till tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!" ' --'But "glory' doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected. --'When I use word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean --neither more nor less.' etc.
As a mathematician who knows that Alice in Wonderland was a satire on modern mathematics. Lewis Carroll objected to detaching mathematics from real world and he was completely wrong on that, to the point that only detached from reality mathematics is viewed as proper mathematics by mathematicians today and what he was defending is today look down upon as "elementary mathematics". And basically all his mathematical ideals he was defending in Alice in Wonderland were abandoned as flawed. And yet people to this day find in flawed mathematical analogies something that has a merit outside mathematics. This itself is quite fascinating.
It's sad when people say "well this here is OBVIOUSLY bullshit. Of COURSE we see through this propaganda!" ....aaaand then just equate it all to nazis, as if their beliefs were remotely alike. "CRT is just national socialism for black people!" Holy braincells. If you think that knowing that you are a folk and that it is in your own self interest to defend yourselves EQUALS inventing 'race conscious' politi-speak in order to invent reasons to hate White people for everything... then maybe *you're* the indoctrinated one.
@@Red_Devil_2011 its useless , its worthless , it was created by marxists ; that says it all ! its not about knowledge , its about idiocy and malevolence , but i guess you're too " enlightened " to see that.
@@Red_Devil_2011 marxists aren't the only imbeciles in the world. the ' nation of islam ' " believe a black scientist 6500 yrs. ago created white people . and the precursors of the nazis in the early20th century believed a white scientist 10, 000 yrs ago created non whites. crt is just an other marxist angle on how civilization is totally corrupted and only intellectuals of "knowledge and wisdom " lol, can come up with something better. btw the u.s didn't invent slavery nor the reality that sometimes minorities don't feel totally comfortable because they're a minority.some people arent uncomfortable about it. some individuals are whiners some aint. the whiners and fools are fodder for the propagandists and revolutionaries( yeah the commies are fuc#n with your heads)!!
@@andrewjaman4697 Facts aren't subjective. No matter how much the left wants them to be - they aren't. Facts are real. They cant be changed. And they don't care how you feel about that.
@@andrewjaman4697 It's a myth to think myths are factual. A myth by definition is mythical. Don't fall into thinking a myth is not a myth if its mythical origins were not entirely based on myth. Hope that entirely clears things up.
@@secondarycontainment4727 Facts are statistical and not truisms. The only facts are tautological or deductive from definition. Russell's paradox, Godel's incompleteness theorem, Turing's halting problem with regards to superdeterminism. Remember the foundations of empiricism, phenomenology and epistemology. But, outside of that, yeah, postmodernism is trash. Rejection of rationale and empiricism in favor of subjective experiential "reality" is a monumental regression and, if left unchecked, will be the downfall of humanity.
The only stance that changed was that all white people aren't evil. He never changed his views on America's treatment of blacks or reparations. But I guess people are going to attempt to revise his views the way they revise MLK's.
According to CRT MLK was wrong when he said to judge a man by the content of his character not by the color of his skin. In CRT we only judge a man by the color of his skin.
As a black woman with no kids in the school system I’ve never bothered to read about this theory thanks so so much for making your video about it non intimidating I thought it was going to be heavy on academics I could easily share this in a non political group of I belong in
it has a lot to do with every aspect of American society and American culture. WE don't have any example of any other culture anywhere on the planet. It's all been tainted by Americanism. Africans are also Americanized. We just don't know it because we are led to believe that whitepeople only went to Africa to get slaves, and left the rest of the people alone... The genocide of the American Native, is the same genocide that Africa, Austrailia, India, Mexico, Canada, South America have been distracted from by DEMOCRACY, JOBS, MONEY, ECONOMY which are Americanised racist principle systems which we are born into... "born into a world of sin" Funny how Democracy and Christianity are all over the world. Funny how a jealous god messes up the idea that people could actually love one another.
Don't share it. It's wrong. It's a non-expert attempting to communicate a set of theories he doesn't understand. CRT is an area of theory that deals with the question of why de facto (in real life) racism persists even after the law and the civil rights movement took deliberate steps to end it. That's it. It's seminars and roundtables at annual professional meetings (like the American Political Science Association annual meeting). It's papers in professional journals. It's coffee talks and brown bag lunches. It's not a high-school class on slavery or an exercise in essay-writing in a Civil War history class. It's not telling third-graders about the genocide of Natives, or giving kindergarteners a coloring page about Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks during Black History month. The fact that people (especially Republicans) won't even try to comprehend what CRT is and prefer to use its name to make people afraid of things it actually is not just betrays how ignorant this whole societal "debate" really is. If someone tells you something is "CRT" and you should fear it, you can bet it isn't and they have another agenda.
@@andrewokr16 citing sources out of context is not the way to interpret complex jurisprudential theory. If you do not read all of it, you can't understand any of it.
Nobody actually does thing this is a "great idea" it is a marxist plot to destroy America as so many other plots, and there are people who hate "white" people so much that they will destroy themselves in the process of destroying us. Logic never comes into the discussion.
@@hardmoneysolutions I agree with your comment except that I think there are people who actually think this a good idea. Many of them white. You can’t fix stupid.
If you end up thinking that after watching a video about a widely accepted theory, you know you didn't watch an objective video, no matter how hard they try and dupe you into thinking it is objective.
@@Schmitty34 not really, if you study history at all, the fingerprints of marxist destruction are all over CRT. And, this theory is not all that complicated, in fact it is quite simple and easy to understand, even for someone like you who obviously knows very little about history. When people are given something they did not earn, it severely impacts their psyche and sense of worth becomes over blown. The next step is to destroy things. Children do this, and adults who have been given power they did not earn do this. But to explain in detail to a closed minded person would be impossible and would take a very long time, and you would not listen or read it anyway, so be comfortable with your shallow understanding of this topic and have a good day.
That speaks volumes about you. Maybe you ought to involve yourself with less profound things that don't dysfunctionally cripple your brain. Thinking isn't for everyone.
@@Glicksman1 well, since my brain has become dysfunctionally crippled in order to make sense, i guess you're right 'thinking isn't for everyone'. everyone ought to think, but clearly, not everyone does.
Great video. It's odd to me to want to "change everything at once" - but not have an answer to what that looks like. Seems like: not liking the leaking roof of your house - and deciding to burn the whole house to the ground - before you have the means to build a better house.
Oh, they HAVE an idea of what the end goal looks like -- it's the typical successful-post-Marxist-revolution utopia that will be attained "after the successful revolution" -- but their current plan is always to bring about The Revolution. They don't SAY that for two reasons: 1) Because it would sound ridiculously airy-fairy utopian, (especially after the crashes of all the prospective marxist utopias in the 20th century) and ,2) because leaving the endpoint open disguises the fact that in reality the class-war (for Marx, persecution of the Bourgeoisie, for CRT-ists the persecution of "white oppressors") is a forever war. Even when only vaguely based on Marxism, the "definitional oppressor/oppressed" dichotomy used is always used as an excuse for claiming that anything "you, the good oppressed person" can identify as "the oppressor" serves as perpetual moral justification for action-against. The "short-form" of any "definitional oppressor/oppressed" political theory is always: "Look at this justification for our group wielding all the political power: It is the only moral way." They just prefer that to not be explicit, lest people figure it out and go "That sounds awfully like a really shaky excuse for a naked power grab!" A different way to think of any "definitional oppressor/oppressed" political theory is as a secular religion specifying the oppressed group as "The Chosen People" and Original Sin condemning "The Bad People." Religion isn't the 1st thing that comes to mind, obviously, but if you look at how they wield guilt and "sin" -- along with sort of vaguely dangling sort of nebulous hope for forgiveness -- it is easy to see a parallel.
The problem here is that America has changed since 1970, we’ve grown up with equal civil rights for all while generations of numerous ethnicities have simulated with each other while sharing each other’s traditions which makes Americans so unique in the first place. No other country does what we do.
@@stuartkeithguitars4251 the guy literally gave a critical analysis of what the theory is, based on what proponents of it have written about it. He highlighted what he was quoting from the books themselves. He also makes the point that we can decide for ourselves what we think about the theory. A person could watch this video and leave it feeling positive or negative about the theory. It is really based on outlook.
It leaves alot out and seems to normalize these ideas it quotes German philosophers that wrote their books during nazi Germany but ya that's who we should listen to
This primer moved me from being tentatively pro-CRT to being quite strongly against it. I'll have to do more reading but if this video is a fair presentation of the ideas, my problems with CRT go beyond just what I was exposed to by reading Robin DiAngelo and having conversations with left-leaning people. I still think the way conservative pundits talk about CRT is worryingly inaccurate, but when you cut through the noise and focus on the real thing there's a lot more credence to the idea that CRT is racist than I realised.
I think the conservative pundits focus too much on the fact that it's being implemented by left-wing people rather than the ideas of CRT itself and explain the problems within CRT. What I believe to be the grain of truth in CRT is the fact the culture of minorities are reduced and disappear because of the influence of the majority. It's really made me think more about whether integration is completely good because some aspects of Native American culture have been completely lost due to the Europeans dominating America. But on the other hand, I believe in liberal democracy and it's better to live under that then a tribal society. So I guess that puts me at odds with CRT advocates because liberal democracy should technically be a white supremacist ideology because it was conceived by white people.
@@yoshimitsu8922 you were coolin until about that last sentence. Since when does CRT argue that philosophies conceptualized by white supremacists make those inherently white supremacist ideologies? There is the case that America was founded on white supremacist principals, but those principals are not static and have evolved along with the rest of the world. I’m having a hard time figuring out how you would reach that conclusion without inputting some of your own biases into the equation.
A reply to someone else that may have value to you as someone who has studied critical theory for a very short time. "I understand critical race theory's rejection of objectivity and non-bias to be more a questioning of if objectivity and non-bias is even possible, which is an unresolved philosophical debate. CRT falls on the side of the debate that objectivity is impossible. Given this, what is considered "objective" is influenced by the subjective. If you're worried about academia as a whole, critical theorists would be excited! Academia is built on an approximation to "objectivity" that works well enough, but it's an "objectivity" that is created by academics. That's well and good for things like the physical world, because that's consistently experienced (and thus consistent subjectively), but not so much for the social world, as that's inconsistently experienced by different people (for a wide range of reasons, race being one)."
@@BlapwardKrunkle Because that's the logical conclusion of critical race theory? There is an oppressor race and an oppressed race, and everything created by the oppressor race is inherently evil and should be rejected?
@@sholiss3228 Okay that is helpful to know. I still think you can make objective assumptions about the social world. For example, every single society has created laws and every society that abandons their religion immediately either dies or is absorbed by another society.
Hey Ryan, many thanks for you work. Since a few months I am searching RUclips in order to unterstand the topics you are working on. Your videos are the best of all: not too long, references are given, not emotions only facts and citations. I am so happy. Thanks Martin
@@rickiex I mostly disagree with R MEDHI, and mostly agree with you. There is a problem, and it wasnt created, it is race and mainly with whites relating to blacks, speaking from experience. Where i agree with R MED, in a sense, is it shouldn't be handled with critical race theory or with white supremacy. Both will create a catastrophe. So, since problem is already supposedly handled, therefore there is no problem needs fixing. Unless, like R MED said, the mostly white politicians and intellectuals, think problem can not handled with current measures. The civil rights legal reforms, the present method, i agree with. The problem i have with civil right movement, not the legal reforms it caused, is its lead that racism is only an intellectual delusion and under no condition, race should matter. I disagree with that. It should matter when it should, and its not, only, an intellectual delusion. It is instinctual and, in the past it was added on by ideologies proven false, or, the racism was instilled in others when it was unnecessary or wrong. Legal reforms, race must not matter, i agree with. In job, law, governance and marriage. I also agree it must not matter in partner or friend selection. Forcefully, when necessary, i mean, by social pressure, not law, violence, loosing work, or denied any legal opportunity and expression. But at the present only. The civil rights method, is not a pro-minority method. It is a pro-native method. I agree with crit race theory on that. However, it is peaceful, with maximum fairness, and at present i feel it is more appropriate. It is pro-native, so unwanted minorities numbers supposed to decrease eventually, but not forcefully in any way, to a comfortable, and a balanced level for all. My opinions.
James Lindsay does a great job explaining CRT. "A Summary of Neo-Marxism" *youtu(DOT)be/hkMiV-F4rKY* "The Truth About Critical Methods" *youtu(DOT)be/rSHL-rSMIro* "Why Critical Race Theory Is Un-American" *youtu(DOT)be/iKKdpUvmtg4* Clearly RUclips/ Google doesn't want the public to know what James Lindsay has to say on CRT as they censor/ delete my comment when I add his video links.
This video is what real teaching should look like, but that’s just my opinion. I believe Teaching lays out the information, and lets you decide for yourself what you learned…with no inflections as to what the teacher thinks you should believe,. Lay out the facts, lay out the evidence, let you take in the information, make your own conclusions, decide how you want to interpret it, go out in the world and try out the way you understood it in your own way, and decide if it’s working for you or not. If it isn’t, you still have all of the information the teacher laid out, maybe your personal interpretation needs adjusting, so try again because you have the information (thanks to a great teacher) you just personally interpreted it in a way that didn’t work in your reality.
yeah but according to this, CRT doesn't want to be objective, because that's white supremacy. they want to be subjective, and just tell you what they feel. and where you should stand on things. so yeah, I agree with you.
This crap is fine to teach in theory. But when acted out it has terrible outcomes. Also should never be taught in public schools to children, who have no grasp of theoretic claimst
I am deeply impressed with this video Ryan and have to acknowledge the excellent way you have explained a topic about which, until a few months ago, I had never even heard of. It raises so many issues and questions that it is pointless expressing how I feel about the whole topic but it clearly isn't something to be dismissed lightly and I for one will try to learn more. Again, thank you!
If we're too racially biased for colorblindness to work, how are we not too racially biased for reverse racism to work? If we're too intrinsically negative to be neutral, how are we not too negative to be positive?
The short version is basically: Judge people by their skin and ancestry, and not by their own character and choices. It's a book for a new, sexy version of racism. WHAT AN AGE WE LIVE IN!
@@kimmmimemwest1895 what does acknowledging the past do? If you live today then you share no responsibility for what happened hundreds of years ago. A man cant be tried in court for a murder his great grandfather performed. It keeps people in a looking backwards mentality instead of looking forward. Telling someone they CANT succeed bc of their skin color is a good way to ruin someone.
Thank you for creating and posting this video. I’ve heard the term bandied about by politicians (mostly MAGA Republicans) but until now didn’t know the philosophy or ideas behind CRT. At first I was thinking, “sounds reasonable”, but then it seems CRT went off the rails as theory proponents attacked logic and rational thinking in favor of grievance politics.
Pretty much my thought process too and when they discard neutrality and objectivity they undermine their own position because they are basically just left with their feelings. This may sound like an unfair characterization but if you listen to the critical race theorists themselves you will hear about the emphasis they put on "lived experience" and since we aren't allowed to be objective we have to accept their lived experience as whatever they say it is.
Jeez.. so Marxism leading to race-nationalism aimed predominantly at the youth in order to create something akin to a new world order? Where have we heard that before?
"If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Looking for racism where there is no obvious one, it's more likely to lead to Pareidolia instead of subjective evaluation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
James Lindsay also does great in depth videos. "A Summary of Neo-Marxism" *youtu(DOT)be/hkMiV-F4rKY* "The Truth About Critical Methods" *youtu(DOT)be/rSHL-rSMIro* "Why Critical Race Theory Is Un-American" *youtu(DOT)be/iKKdpUvmtg4* Clearly RUclips/ Google doesn't want the public to know what James Lindsay has to say on CRT as they censor/ delete my comment when I add his video links.
Racism has already been thoroughly created. To think otherwise is tone deaf at best. U.S. History teaches us this. Or did you forget about Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws, the destruction of every Black city in America (over 160), and the war on drugs...which is admittedly a war on Black people and anti-war activists. That was an admission from the Nixon administration. But you feel free to keep on thinking that teaching about our racist history is causing racism.
@@williesawyerii73 I didn't forget but this "education" promotes victimhood with racist ideologies and it is stuck on past history failing to recognize progress and what can we do to move forward today
I think it’s important to understand this context: As I understand it, proponents of CRT see politics as touching every part of life. In that way, everything is political. So framing this as “advancing their political goals” rather than “advancing anti-racist social policy” is a little icky. :/
James Lindsay does a great job explaining CRT. "A Summary of Neo-Marxism" *youtu(DOT)be/hkMiV-F4rKY* "The Truth About Critical Methods" *youtu(DOT)be/rSHL-rSMIro* "Why Critical Race Theory Is Un-American" *youtu(DOT)be/iKKdpUvmtg4* Clearly RUclips/ Google doesn't want the public to know what James Lindsay has to say on CRT as they censor/ delete my comment when I add his video links.
"CRT is a standard bolshevik tactic. It's the same tactic they used the first time in Russia. The topic is slightly different but the tactic is identical. It isn't about race or anything meaningful. It's about creating division between people and causing chaos. So the dear communists can save us all. That's what it is."
Bad take. CRT is a lazy co-opt of Marxist thought in that instead of placing all historical materialistic analysis on the class struggle, it places everyone on a super American-centric obsession with race. Marxists rebuke CRT, American "leftists" who are in fact just radical liberals embrace CRT because they want to still be able to have brunch and fancy cars while saying they're helping by being "anti-racist". They'd be happy for there to be a large number of minorities on Wall Street as proof of wokeness and not worry about millions of poor white people. Marxists with any ounce of principle in their blood would and do rebuke such a notion and see CRT as the enemy of the working masses as Marxism seeks to Unite the Workers of the World. It's literally the catch phrase for socialism. CRT seeks to divide the masses over the color of their skin, no different than racists of yesteryear
What you say at 19:17 is so utterly profound. And also very good video. It's rare to see a unbiased presentation of something with source material to back it up and remain impartial.
It is offensive to say you do not see color! Say you don't base decisions on color, but to not see it is to deny it, and if you need to do that, you fear or loathe it.
This is a great, clear and honest video. Thank you so much! I want to share some of my thoughts on CRT. Thing that annoys me the most in this theory is this denialism of almost any empathy towards people from another racial background. There are some things that may be useful in this CRT perpsective (to be honest, very few in my opinion), but the idea that strikes me the most is this concept of "black experience", "black voices", "white experience", "whiteness" etc. Now, I know that I can't fully understand other people's emotions or experience, but I can use empathy to get as close to it as I can. I'm not a woman, but I can uderstand some things that are specific to women and I can feel sympathy, solidarity, even if I am a man. The same with race, orientation etc. We have empathy and reason - very strong and great tools to interact with others. CRT is removing the possibility of understanding one another on this basic, human level. As a white person I can never understant black experience, I can only listen and agree, never question. This idea is really damaging in my opinion it's like we're almost different species that cannot understand each other. And I believe that most people share the same common needs. We want to be loved, feel safe, have a meaning in our lives etc. Even if we are totally different, have different experience, history, knowledge, whatever, there's still so many that we have in common. When you remove this, by suggesting that we can't possibly understand one another, can't feel empathy, it's a recipe for disaster. And at the end of this road you have ideas like: science and logic are white tools of opression and stories, rituals, magic or something are other ways of knowing that belongs to people of colour. It's absolutely racist and stereotyping, but somehow it's called anti-racist now. And yes, these are the fruits of the CRT, even though we hear everytime that it's not a real CRT, no one is saying this etc... I mean, most people are not that stupid. These are natural conclusions of CRT. And we should be able to say it out loud.
I do agree but with your peoples track record, constant denial on top of it being someone that looks like me who dies when you are in a position of authority. Not individually but as a whole. Attacked our industries and now tell us we are lazy. I think CRT would help poc to not fall in the traps and to not expect equal treatment when it comes to interactions with your people. We are different but you won't back away enough to see it. What are you afraid of?
@CharlieWalter the video talked about deconstruction of inherently racist systems not deconstructing relationship between individuals. African Americans will tell you the worst thing to happen to us since slavery was government forced integration. We had our communities and economic system, but the 🇺🇸 took it from us and for what...the majority of our communities are underfunded and undereducated. When we were left alone our contributions to science, medicine, entertainment, and manufacturing built not only this country but shaped the world. I guess the powers that be understood this and kept us within this White power construct.
I think it's helpful to view CRT like rational people view religion. Harmful if taken to it's extremes, but helpful in giving some form of insight into aspects of the human condition. It's like how Abrahamic religions view the problem of evil as sin, CRT views the problem of inequality in society as racism. Sin is not only viewed as specific actions but as part of the fabric of human nature. Racism is viewed not only as specific actions but also as an element of our society. It's the age old "Problem, here's a solution" setup. Balance is the key, getting too deep into CRT will inevitably produce blindspots in your thinking but when looked at as just one option of analysis in a wide intellectual toolkit, it can be helpful.
Critical Race theory in America is only critical of one race. That should tell you something. It identifies people as being a skin color, instead of being, kind, caring, loving, rude, or whatever they are being. We should all hope we are being something more important than a skin color.
Oh but friend, it’s only critical of one race? But was it not only one race that enslaved black people for 400+ years? How can you teach American history minus the talk of race?
@Bob Thomas Firstly, I have been nothing but polite on this thread and you on the other hand have come off totally hostile towards me like you know me. But it’s alright. So let’s have a conversation, firstly I’m not mad about what happened 400 years ago. I’m mad about the lasting effects it’s had that continues to plague the black community till this day. You know, a common misconception most people have is that when they see the “400” number is it happened a long time ago and we should forget. But see when you forget something you don’t learn from it. That’s why this needs to be taught, you learn about the past so that you won’t make the same mistakes again. But if History isn’t going to be told in its entirety including the real reasons people did what they did in the past, then you’re not teaching the truth. It’s all fallacy. America was built on racism, no matter how guilty this makes one feel it’s the truth and it’s our generations job to not repeat the same mistake. And just to clarify, Morgan Freeman was wrong. There is no problem on earth that ever got solved by ignoring it. People like Harriet Tubman and Fredrick Douglas struggled throughout their entire life to fight racism and people like Martin Luther made it so that most black people have the civil right they do. Imagine if they just stopped talking about their oppression, would the rest of us have been in the position we are now? You know the real way to stop Racism? Teach about it and not pretend like it doesn’t exist.
@Bob Thomas I feel atleast now we are getting somewhere with this conversation rather than we did before, so because of that I commend you. However I feel like we do live in a two different realities. Racism hasn’t gone anywhere at all. Just because people aren’t being whipped and used for free labor doesn’t mean that these things have ended. The only difference is, it’s not so obvious anymore. The racism isn’t subtle however because it comes of as discrimination. Let’s take Policing for instance, black people are 3 times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police as compared to white people. Why is that? I mean we all are equal aren’t we? If you don’t see color anymore then why is that a truth? Here’s another one, why is it when you apply for a job or a bank loan you have to fill in your race? If this is a problem that doesn’t exist anymore why does that matter? Racism hasn’t gone anywhere, and in as much progress as we’ve made we can’t afford to pretend like things are alright when they aren’t. In April 3 straight days in a row, they were different cases of police brutality and all the people murdered were people of color. It’s very difficult to agree with the statement claiming this problem has changed, it hasn’t at all. I know people that have been pulled over at gunpoint by the police just because he was driving a nice car. You’d think in a 1st world country that wouldn’t be a thing right? And to your point on white supremacy I’m sorry but I’ll have to agree with Biden on that one. Do you remember what life was like before covid? There was a school shooting nearly every week. A lot of those school shooters had white supremacist manifestos too. One of them actually shot up a black church. In recent years they have been more school shootings than they have been international terrorist attacks. See my point here is this, the only way we can learn is through being taught. And the only way we can teach is if we teach the truth. If we teach children only the good parts we are preparing them for a future of denial. A child’s mind is easier to change than an adults’. If someone grew up thinking Racism doesn’t exist, they won’t believe it in their old age, but if you teach them that this is a problem that we face as a society and we need to overcome it together, we will definitely make strides forward. The problem will not fix itself, we have to do that. And it starts with teaching our kids the truth.
Took me FOREVER to find a video that didn’t have their bias through the explanation. This is gold. I need to understand this theory as I’m in the teaching profession. I don’t know how I feel about it because I didn’t fully understand it. This helps so much. Thank you
CRT at its core is about bringing superior people down to the level of lesser people. Basic communism 101. "And the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, ax and saw."
Every explanation has bias, including this one. That makes this guy’s videos dangerous. They masquerade as lacking bias even though they are biased. I don’t trust people who lie to themselves, and this guy is lying to you and others about his biases.
@@icedirt9658 look I didn’t say HE wasn’t bias…we all are to our own opinion on things. I said his explanation of what CRT is about was not bias. He also had sources. So you don’t need to trust him necessarily but if you need some information (like I did) this was a good video where clear bias wasn’t through the video as well as extreme emotion because of the topic. It was refreshing
I hear you, but this guy definitely has a bias. Everybody does and it's essentially impossible to escape. Don't mistake fair, for impartial or unbiased. A good video, no doubt, but certainly his opinion is heard.
This video should have 350 million views. Every American should know the unvarnished facts about CRT so hey can decide. Outstanding presentation, Thank you very much
@@itsmorphed6416 It’s good for what it is: a start. The problem is that simplistic thinkers believe it’s the final word. They don’t want to engage with the material. I agree it doesn’t go deep, but I didn’t expect it would. I’m disappointed that there are a few gaps that should have been explained better and more directly (for example, what is whiteness, exactly?) Ryan touches on the question without really engaging it directly, imho. Scott (the OP) calls Ryan’s gloss “the unvarnished facts”. I don’t think Ryan would claim that. It’s Ryan’s best approximation, his current understanding. But Scott thinks a 20 minute video is the final word. Something tells me Scott is seeing what he wants to see and hearing what he wants to hear. He wasn’t intellectually curious to begin with.
@@whosdatboy122 Nobody said it's racist. Please listen to that section again. As a hint, it was described as white. Now think about CRT's most basic beliefs about race.
They seem to be saying that racism is everywhere and in every interaction but that they somehow know how to stop racism with more racism. Racism will always be present but we can minimalize it when we stop focusing on race.
We tried that approach. it does not work! CRT is an attempt to look at race 60 years after the civil rights act and see what has worked and where that traditional approach has failed
@@Jim-c6e Can you provide any information regarding the failed approach that you are talking about? I assume CRT comes from the heart and is sincere in its goal but I feel like they've gone overboard and I want to understand this POV more.
@@nealteitelbaum8660 I cant help you understand anything about CRT other than the fact that a lot of white men are scared shit of it and want it banned before it is even taught.
@@jenniferbrown3782 Darling, this society was terminally divided in 1776! Nothing I say can make matters worse than they already are and have been for hundreds of years! The question is, how do we move forward from here?
@@Jim-c6e I didn't ask you about CRT. I can find info on that myself. You responded to my comment "Racism will always be present but we can minimalize it when we stop focusing on race" by stating "We tried that approach. it does not work!". I would like info on what was tried, exactly, and how it didn't work. Obviously you have data or sources for that claim, no?
I’ve been aware of CRT among numerous “Critical Theory” movements / ideologies for 20 or so years (late 1990’s) after stumbling into the research of “Affirmative Action” & it’s origins took me down one hell of a rabbit hole. It has been absolutely WILD to witness the ideology spill out into the real world, so to speak, over the last decade especially gaining critical mass over the last few years, it’s a sort of hyper-Marxian Leftist religious awakening. Sometimes I now think this is what it’s like, in a way, to live through a modern day version of ~1930’s Central Europe.
CRT is to Marxism what the movie Gladiator is to Roman history, if you know what I mean. Marxism may have been the inspiration, but it's been so "burgerized" that you can't call it Marxism anymore. Also, there's a large portion of the left that sees the woke religion for what it is (especially the Matxist left).
@@souljastation5463 That's the thing. It's hard to pin down what "pure" Marxism is. There are Marxists who believe that the only thing that is pure Marxism is dialectical materialism. Pure Marxism was abandoned in the early 1900s and replaced with various Vanguard Marxisms, like Leninism. Marxism itself has been subjected to Marxist critique, applying the dialectical method to resolve the contradictions. World War I was a large part of what the catalyst was for these updates to Marxism.
I've spent the last several years deliberately avoiding almost any media consumption of controversial contemporary topics. With the exception of a few obscure professors (e.g., Great Lectures), it consists of cheerleading, loaded words, projection of personal values, unwanted assumptions, or some other insulting delivery. I have just finished consuming several of your videos. The topics are not only interesting, but for pretty much everyone, they are impossible to discuss dispassionately. But somehow not for you. It is as though you are wise enough to know how your personal ideology might unexpectedly seep out to those sensitive to it, and crafty enough to completely avoid it. It seems to defy your youth. I have no idea of your political ideology, and I couldn't be more impressed! Please keep up the good work. Your intellectual curiosity, and your ability to respectfully share your journey with others will, I suspect, serve you well in your long future. Thanks.
CRT literally teaches racism and to judge based on race. I've seen "lessons" on CRT, and it literally stated in these lessons that "Society is based in whiteness", and that all white people are born racists by default, even on a subconscious level, and will even unintentionally act to keep black people down whether they realize it or not, and so all black people need to be granted special treatment because they'll, by default, never be able to make it by on their own since society works against them, and if any black people disagree with this idea or want to make it by on their own without special treatment or if they want to be treated equally that it's because they've been brainwashed by white supremacists into thinking that way as a way to keep them down. This is not an exaggeration, this was directly stated in the so-called lessons. It's insulting to all races, and literally teaches racism.
That’s what I don’t get either. How or why are schools not realizing that this is simply a different form of racism? Are they playing dumb? I honestly am confused by this
So, watching this, I was getting increasingly uneasy and skeptical about whether Ryan was presenting his sources fairly. There seemed to be a lot of instances where he says one thing, while the highlighted text and the text around it says another or where he injects his own small twists or value judgments so as to present CRT as unreasonable, while trying to do it in a way that on the surface seems "objective, neutral and balanced". It seems that he obviously goes to great lengths to read and present these things, so I'm not sure that his skew is intentional. But I think that he might ought to take a page from the books he were reading, so to speak, and get a little more authentic in his presentation by making it more explicit what he thinks is right and wrong and what he thinks about the theories he is presenting - instead of letting it seep in sideways. Below are my scribbled notes while watching. 1:38: Color-blindness, Reagan, 1981, hostile to civil rights policies of the previous two decades. Ryan, on color-blindness: "They think that in reality, we are too racially biased for it to work." While the highlighted quote says: "...would make no sense at all in a society in which identifiable groups had actually been treated differently historically and in which the effects of this difference in treatment continued into the present." 2:25: Ryan, on racial integration: "is basically having a melting pot-vision of America where people with different racial backgrounds come together and share values, political power and society itself. Which also implies that people try to downplay their racial differences in favor of trying to see the common humanity in each other." While the text, after the highlighted part, says: "This concept of integration was based on an appreciation of American society's culturally pluralistic nature. However, things have gone off track. [...] "the ideal of assimilation replaced the hard-fought-for integration as pluralism" which stemmed from a respect for diff[erence? ...]". 6:53: Ryan: "So critical race theorists looked at academia and they looked at the traditional ways that they felt academics are supposed to behave. And they boiled it down to a few values that academics are supposed to have. And those values were to be "objective, neutral and balanced." " While the text says: "As a reflection of authenticity, critical race scholarship also rejects the traditional dictates that implore one to write and study as a detached observer whose work is purportedly objective, neutral and balanced. In the classic sense of "professing," critical race scholars advocate and defend positions." Ryan about Horkheimer, at 8:50: "According to him, critical theorists work in academia with their political goals in mind. So they subjectively slant their academic findings to accomodate their political goals." (This last part sounds like Ryan's unfair interpretation. Meanwhile, the highlighted text shown has an unobvious relation to what Ryan is attributing to Horkheimer.) At 10:41, Ryan says: "They don't objectively look at all the possible explanations for why these racial disparities might be happening." This seems to give the game away. What are these possible explanations, Ryan? At 10:46, Ryan says: "There's a third source, too, and I don't know if I would call it evidence, but it's a factor that critical race theorists bring into their analysis and that's historical context. But again, this is done in a subjective, political way, which means that they usually invoke a history of oppression to say that something is more racist than it might otherwise appear. So it could be a law or it could be a behavior, an attitude - or in this case saying,, "because of a history of oppression, we can presume that these unwanted differences come from racism"." So, in my humble subjective opinion, historical context is pretty weighty evidence. Scoffing at historical context as evidence seems absurd, since it so directly shows how many of the disparities between racial groups came about. ...I stopped with the incessant notes at this point, since I was at this point convinced of Ryan's bias.
It's pretty scary that these theorists go so hard on deconstruction without having any real idea of what they want to do after. Kinda like a bull in a china shop. And from what little they communicate as their vision of the future, it sounds almost like a hunger games situation but with all the districts being race-based. I am not a fan.
That’s always my biggest question .. they talk about creating a world without oppression but what does that even look like? I do not trust theorists that do not believe in objective truth .. Why would anyone trust these theorists? What have they actually created to show us to give us faith in their ability?
@@billsimms2511 Sounds like what Thomas Sowell calls "the vision of the anointed". People who believe themselves to be far more enlightened than everyone else. They have all sorts of theories and ideas that they believe must be implemented on the rest of society but they have no forethought and never have to be the ones to bear the consequences of their decisions.
Hi. 'The system' is a global problem. The colonists exported it whereever they went, which is everywhere lol. In South Africa we say we want to decolonize things. You guys are saying deconstruct. Same thing.
@@billsimms2511 do u believe in science? It's also alot theory 🤭 So is economics. Terrible theory🙄 I was shocked when I heard about this. We also have the same problem. Go figure, same system 🤷♀️ but your fancy lawyers are using fancy words. We use simple words to describe this in SA😂
Wow, I didn't think I'd come away from this video intensely disliking the notion of critical race theory. Usually when something controversial like this is explained it's revealed to be pretty balanced and nuance, but this is a theory that actively rejects the notion of being balanced and nuanced. It's just plain racist.
@@supermaple1919 Mainly the lack of any attempt at objectivity and the specific racial focus rather than general racial focus. Provided it is as it is presented in this video and not misrepresented. But even so, some of those direct quotes don't paint it in a good light.
@@Jotari thank you very much for your response I am processing your response or your reply and give me a few or sometime and I will respond to you the best way I can even if you may not agree with what I'm saying that doesn't mean I'm trying to be confrontational and if you agree... BINGO!!! BE WELL. fffflllloooooooo 😎
@@supermaple1919 It's been two months since I actually watched the video, so if I don't respond because I don't feel like watching the video again than take that as it is. I am a man of many facets, and much like most, moderate laziness is in abundance.
Interesting takeaway, I feel that the aversion might just be the view of objectivity and race as it relates to CRT. I'm not sure if I'm making sense, so to expand, you missed that through CRT *pure* objectivity without bias is impossible. And to truly break down racism and other forms of oppression, one must look through the eyes of the oppressed. The viewing of our practices as an oppressed person, through things like anecdotes and statistics, is an important aspect when deconstructing racism. Crucial to the idea of CRT is nuance when examining the power structures of our society and how race is related.
Ryan, This is an impressive and excellent presentation of a dense topic. Using well chosen words and a calm collected style you are able to cover so much in just a few minutes.
I love how scientific you go about making your videos, quoting passages, backing up everything you say and keeping fanatic ideologies out of your argumentation. And, as many have complained already, it's super hard to find an unbiased and concrete explanation of CRT.
Ryan Chapman actually comes off as extremely biased and a little racist in this video. This was a deeply misleading and deceptive "explanation" of CRT. He used primary sources, but he misquoted them or misinterpreted them throughout the video. His technique is to take a passage, then highlight a sentence fragment, then misinterpret it as saying something different than what it actually says. Worse still, this doesn't seem to be due to stupidity, but rather to willful malice. Here are 2 obvious examples: 1) 7:27 Chapman claims that critical race theorists reject "objectivity, balance and detached neutrality" in academia as "white values." However, this is *not* what the highlighted text states. The highlighted text does not refer to "objectivity", but rather to _"purported_ objectivity". Which means when one attempts to convey they _appearance_ of objectivity without actually being so. That's a *big* difference. CRT theorists are saying that white academics have historically laundered their bias through a thin veneer of false objectivity. They reject trying to *pretend* you are unbiased when you are actually very biased. Thus, they recommend that it's better you don't try to pretend to be unbiased, and instead, announce your biases ahead of time so that the readers of your work can be cautious. Chapman totally misrepresented this point by selectively highlighting only a fragment of the sentence and not the whole thing. 2) 2:07 Chapman claims that CRT rejects "color blindness" because CRT theorists believe that we're too racist to be color blind, but again, that's not what the quoted text says. The text doesn't say that we're too racist to do it. It says that the result of _previous_ years of racism have created major inequities that color blind policies tend to reinforce. Chapman totally lied about what the text. He said one thing while the text onscreen said something entirely different. The text also explains that because color blind policymaking tends to reinforce previous inequities it can actually be exploited by contemporary racist people to make the problem worse. They illustrate this by pointing out that the Reagan campaign embraced color blind policymaking as a way to beat back the civil rights movement, rather than as a way to support it. Chapman of course, ignores this.
@@yessum15 I believe you're a bit overreacting here. Yes, leaving out the "purported" does make it sound like CRTists saying objectivity is bad "because it's white" instead of "we can't be objective". However that doesn't change the conclusion that academia should be openly subjective and political. In your next point the text says that the differential treatment continues into the present. Wouldn't that mean that we're still racially biased today as Ryan interprets it? Wouldn't that even play into the concept of systemic racism? I tried to go through the video again and besides your two objections I found one more questionable interpretation on 18:24 where he adds "at least if you're not white" even thought it isn't mentioned in the shown text. I'm sure you can pull out more examples because I didn't read the originals and don't have the full picture.
@@leirex_1 1) *_" the text says that the differential treatment continues into the present."_* NO. You are misreading the text. The sentence does not say "this differential treatment continues into the present". It says "the *effect* of this differential treatment continues into the present". In other words, color-blind policymaking would make no sense in a society where *historical* racism caused problems whose effects persist into today. This is very different from saying that the historical racism itself persists. That's the entire point of this section of the text and your interpretation is literally the opposite of what it says. The entire idea is that even with the best intentions, _even in a society where no one is racist,_ colorblind policies would typically work to reinforce historical racism. 2) *_"that doesn't change the conclusion that academia should be openly subjective and political."_* The text doesn't say that at all. It literally doesn't say that or anything close to that anywhere. The text says 3 things: a) It is impossible to be objective often it is more harmful to pretend to be objective than to admit your own biases. b) The default bias in most historical academic scholarship produced in the US has been slanted towards reinforcing white biases. c) *If you are doing critical race theory* you should not pretend to attack this white bias from a neutral position, but admit and embrace the fact that your position is also biased. That last one is pretty important. It's not prescribing this to all academia. Or telling you that you should always do this. It's saying that _when you're doing CRT_ you should act like this. This actually has less to do with Critical Race Theory itself, and more to do with Critical Theory in general. Critical Theory in general is a field of study that requires us to explore the hidden biases and assumptions in our traditional beliefs. So if you do it without being open about your own bias, you're doing it poorly. Critical Race Theory applies that same idea to race. But that doesn't mean that ALL academia should be biased. The goal of all academia is to arrive at real objective truth. When you're doing orthodox academic study, its ok to adopt the default "neutral objective voice", even if you know it's a lie. But when you do critical theory you have to reject this voice and speak from your own "authentic" and biased position. Then, when you combine the two, you're able to get closer to the real truth. Because your own openly biased position may help you see the hidden biases in the supposedly "objective" work you usdd to look at as neutral. This is not really a controversial position and it's a pretty old idea in academia. And the text excepts explain this reasonably well. It's very different from any of the crazy garbage this imbecile Chapman was saying. 3) *_"You're overreacting here"_* No. You're underreacting. I simply chose a small representative sample. but lIterally _every single thing_ Chapman said about CRT in this video was wrong. You would literally be better off having heard nothing. Most of the time, he interpreted the text to mean he opposite of what was written. He quoted sentence fragments out of context and read out loud something different than what was written. And the *absolute worst part* is that he did it while pretending to present an unbiased, neutral view of the topic. This is SO much worst than an open racist simply admitting that he hates colored people and attacking CRT for an hour. He is literally committing the very sin the text warns against. He is purposely lying and smearing the study of CRT as a result of his own prejudices and adopting a fake objective and neutral voice. This is the worst kind of racist.
Here's a solution: everyone who believes in Critical Race Theory should create their own nation state, and show us all how to implement their Theory. Otherwise, they're just whiny little children.
So many things to say. I think it would benefit your audience to make another video describing the links between neo-Marxism and CRT. As a mixed race individual (half-white) I have been put in the unfortunate position of being both oppressor and oppressed. I believe the underlying assumption is that I drop my white identity in favor of my other in order to define myself through this system. And there are more and more people like me - mixed race and dealing with the implications that entails. I would suggest that we of mixed race experience yet even more/different problems than those of single race backgrounds, and CRT has not attempted to address this in a significant way. I will be showing my hand a bit here by saying - how you can discuss this with a straight face is impressive. I think you did your due diligence by explaining that CRT has provided no substantial answer to the problem, just that the problem exists. But I think you down-played the focus that is made on black vs. white dynamics and that the latino, asian and other communities are just kind of along for the ride. A good amount of focus is made on slavery; other immigrant issues are not as strongly addressed. And lastly - how dare you use a piece of music by black artists to bookend your video! racist . Ah, I love identity politics!
I'm seeing several contradicting ideas which can't possibly add to a solution. "Colorblindness" may not have worked on it's own (at least not enough) in the past, but that don't mean it shouldn't remain a core focus as to how we judge others. The only fair way to judge people is as individuals and the more we focus on separating people into "color" groups, the more apt we are to judge people in groups. Racism is born out of ignorance and fear (from our tribal limbic system), thus we should avoid terminology which will trigger the minds (limbic system) of ignorant people (racists), and cause more threat response (which instils fear) from their irrational (and over used) limbic system. Only our rational and logical cortex can deduce the differences between real threats and perceived threats. We have to admit that we are still tribal beings and that it's human nature for people to distrust tribes different from their own. The differences are only superficial and insignificant, but most people aren't very logical, thus tend to form their beliefs, values and positions based on their biased and irrational emotions from their visceral limbic systems. I think the focus should be on equal rules, laws, rights, opportunity....... for all "Americans". Racists already feel like they deserve more and will forever be triggered (thus dig in their heels and resist more vehemently) when people rally for more rights for minorities. If the focus is on general rights and equality it gives racists no ammo to attack with and they would be attacking their own rights if they resisted. When I hear, "my people", I cringe, because that is what discriminating racists have (people just like them). My people are humans and I'm far to logical to separate people into different groups based on levels of melanin in their eyes, hair or skin. It's arbitrary, insignificant and ridiculous. In America the "racists" are white because those people are the majority of skin color. In many other countries where white people are minorities, they would be discriminated against. Racism is a human problem and only rational and logical thinking skills can override our tribal biases from our irrational and visceral limbic systems. Racists are people with dominant influence from the limbic systems and weak influence from their logical cortexes. They are the way they are due to how their brains are wired. It's up to more capable (in logical thinking) people to help assuage their fears from false threats, rather than (typically) exacerbating their fears. Societal problems come from the limbic system and any solutions can only come from the cortex. Limbic system vs limbic system has only caused arguments, chaos and wars. Problem solving requires logic and reason and emotions only get in the way by causing a mountain of resistance to the cause (equality for all people, just as it logically should be).
Thank you for this! It's been so hard to find an in depth explanation that wasn't clearly biased one way or another or made assumptions. This was a great explanation to help people form their own opinions. Ty!
Genuinely, you're the first and only one I've seen who understood and knew of the connection between the North American CRT and the Frankfurt School, although you didn't name it that. Essentially Critical Theory is the method of the Frankfurt School, as the Scientific Method is the method of Science. To put it in a very brief way: The Frankfurt School (I'm referrencing Horkenheimer specifically, though this applies to the Frankfurt School in general) is against logical empiricism and sees itself as a direct competitor to science. Areo Magazine has an amazing article called "How Critical Theory came to be skeptical of Science". There is a lot of revisionism going on with regards to the Frankfurt School, which you managed to weed out. Great video, by far the best breakdown I have seen in the political sphere, not just online.
For me, you did a good job of explaining this theory. Thank you for using primary source materials in your explanation. I understand CRT better because of your presentation. (I am opposed to this theory but I am glad to understand the point of view.)
@@seannymommy Explain it to us, then. Which parts of his explanation are incorrect? Which direct quotes need more context to more thoroughly be understood to the point that they will drastically alter the aforementioned message?
Thank you for all the work you put into this video, both in researching CRT and the clear way you presented your findings. I feel like a have a much better grasp of what CRT actually is - at least the basics/broad strokes of what it is. I wouldn't be surprised if 99% of the people talking about CRT, from politicians to people at school board meetings, haven't a clue what CRT actually is; hopefully some of them will watch this video too.
I have heard about Critical Race Theory before, but never understood it until watching this video. I really enjoyed your video and how much it caused me to think about this subject. Personally, I'm shocked at how the Integration and Color-Blindness arguments were things I agreed with and how their analysis of academia and views to remove balanced objectivity and neutrality reversed my opinion instantly. I can understand the views against integration; ever since I read a book that retold Cherokee oral stories from multiple storytellers, the preface which gave the accounts of the authors and editor also gave a sentiment that crushed my emotional views about being American. I couldn't find the book before typing this so I can't quote it like I wanted (but I found the book's title: Cherokee Stories of the Turtle Island Liars' Club), but the gist of what I remember from a small portion of the preface was that the Cherokee language is dying out in the writers' communities - the younger generation, while understanding the language, are not very capable of speaking it - and the reasoning is tied to modern development which has discouraged the older generation away from teaching their kids and grandkids from learning the language. Essentially, old folks are choosing to let a part of their cultural traditions, a facet of their racial identity, die out of feeling like it is outdated and being inadequate to modern American culture. This hurt me to read, because it goes against what I was taught to be proud in as an American: a country that is built from multiple cultures and identities from around the world that was founded on the principle of Freedom of Expression. The Indigenous cultures that lived here before than were trampled and segregated after centuries of Western expansion, but they are still American, and their culture is just as important as any other. Integration has tried to eliminate Native cultures in the past and accounts like this shows that it is seemingly succeeding, but modernization shouldn't come at the expense of the destruction of culture. They should evolve and adapt like any other living thing, so this account of willing death of one's own language is really discouraging and the thought this might have happened before and will happen again because of modern cultural development is lamentable. If the solutions that CRT were exploring could help remedy the death of minority cultures, then I'd be on board. However, how can anyone say that the solution in fixing racial issue in academia would be the removal of objective, neutral, and balanced thinking? Although they came to this conclusion through research, this isn't a "whiteness" issue. Looking at things objectively is the closet to engaging with a subject without bias leading the conversation, it is one of the best ways to actually learn about concepts and histories you don't already know. To remove a neutral stance would be the same as yelling at a wall as there is no middle ground between you or your opponent, to not give balanced arguments is being willingly ignorant of potential factors that don't fit the narrative you want to promote. I guess it could help social discourse by having two people passionate debate their ideologies with their biases leading them while being viewed by an audience, but you can't make ground with the person you're debating when the opponent doesn't want to relent or budge; they and you will exit the conversation the same way you entered without really learning anything. Going into a conversation with an open mind should be the basis of modern education (or education in general) with how big and diverse the world truly is. I can't see Critical Race Theorists who reach the conclusion that these principles of learning are race specific, and to use them makes you less authentic if you aren't white, as that helpful to society as a whole. Having personal biases is fine and subjective perspectives are important for discussion, but academia shouldn't promote one method of learning as "racist" or that someone who engages this type of learning is less authentic. Critical Race Theory seems to have some good goals and perspectives, but I can't agree that so many issues the Theorists choose to tackle are race specific or to fix actual race issues should coincide with removal of basic academic learning.
May suggest you watch a video about Hitler's Table Talk by Tik. He's a historian, and tackles the issue of objectivity vs subjectivity in the context of history, but it applies to the sciences too. We have been told basically what cannot be measured is implication cannot be true, but there's a problem with that. Consider the measurement of distance. If you look in a good unit converter, you will see various units of measurements that evolved, in different times, different places. For example, the cubit is no longer used. Indeed, there are only twi coyntries in the world that use what we would call Imperial Measurements. Between a cubit, a yard, or a metre, which one is objectively true, and what makes it so? With human beings, the idea that we can ever be 100% objective about anything is a myth. We make choices what to be "objective' about, yet those choices, are highly subjective, and contingent. We as observers of phenomena, are subject to those phenomena by affect, and effect. Therefore, no human activity can be divorced from being human. Scientidic truth is only "true" in the context of science, but there are other truths, experiential truths, that can only be described qualitatively. And that alone, brings more subjectivity into play. We have been taught in our culture that the norms of the physical sciences, are in some regard, the gold standard for "truth" in every discipline, and that is not completely true without abstraction of phenomena, which can be approximated by measurement in certain aspects of existence. That is the issue with the Social Sciences, which is the study of various dimensions of human experience, where the observer and the observed are one and the same - human. Critical Race Theory challenges the mental maps based on race, and asks us to critique those maps on the basis of what they direct us to do. Therefore, if the observer and obsetved are one and the same, objectivity and subjectivity are pretty much sharing the same space. CRT offers different maps, highlighting unobserved, or taken for granted freatures in the landscape, that those travelling through don't notice. Critical Race Theorists focus on the phenomena of race, and its various strands, come to different maps, because of the features they see as important, which should be included in the map they create. Choices again. Again, think of what is Theory? . Theory is used basically to do 2 things: to explain or describe, and to predict. Critical Race Theory challengies other theories. For example, it challengies "Color-blindness", as a theory, as a philosophy, and as a top-down solution offered by those benefitting from racist political, economic, and social hierarchies, which fail to be just, equitable, or restorative. That's the critique. But watch Tik's video then think about how can humans be objective? And is it even desireable, or even possible in every circumstance? Then think on the nature of truth.
It seems like just about everyone in this comment section is getting tripped up by the terms "objectivity" and "neutrality" in academia. Neutrality when teaching the history a racial impression in America is not at all "neutral". With issues such as slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, police brutality, and enforced generational poverty through redlining are not debatably good or bad historical phenomenon within American history. Is quite clear that the normative judgment is and should always have been that these events and policies and practices fly in the face of basic standards of human Rights on a universal level. So American academia tradition of teaching about the fact that say... Yes, slavery happened. Yes, post reconstruction Southern repression and systematic disenbranchisement of freedmen and women happened. Housing segregation and prevention to access to resources and opportunities for education and healthcare... Happened. The thing is once you start to scratch beneath the surface of well this happened... Something that should be automatically expected of academics, we immediately run into how and why were these policies and practices implemented that were so clearly oppressive bigoted and designed to deny black Americans there basic human rights. The answer to that is well racism you know? And if you're uncomfortable discussing racism as being a guiding principle of American society throughout much of its history that is directly responsible for these and many other aspects of racial oppression throughout our history, you start to be forced to abandon the ficade of neutrality. Not teaching about the substance of American history and why racial oppression has occurred in our society since the beginning of our nation's founding is not a neutral or objective stance whatsoever as an academic scholar or as a common sense individual trying to make sense of the world. Being 'neutral' simply means being quiet about confronting the uncomfortable truth of our nation's history instead of tiptoeing on eggshells around centuries of oppression that leaves Americans educated in the US public education system and many universities completely ignorant about extremely significant fundamental aspects of their history that is necessary for them to have a non distorted view of their own country's history.
@@BigHenFor Critical Race Theory, like all critical theories as outlined by Horkheimer, are not merely analytical tools but rather blueprints for activism. Critical theorists aren't at all concerned about understanding reality; rather they are hellbent on changing it into their own version. This is why it is essential, despite what Ryan says, to grasp the Marxist roots of this stuff, for Marx and all his fellow utopians are revolutionaries. They connive to overthrow current reality in order to implant a utopia in which they are the masters and everyone else is a peon. You have only to understand what has happened when Marxists have seized power anywhere to grasp the point.
I think the definition of "objective, neutral, and balanced" is very important here, and I'm fuzzy on what the CRT authors mean. If they reject merely the APPEARANCE of objectivity and neutrality, like refraining from putting forward your political opinions alongside your data, that's one thing. If they reject BEING objective or the PURSUIT of objective truth, that's another thing, and alarms me. I mean, if we're not all trying to get at the objective truth, what framework do we have at all for conversation and getting along? But when someone says "objectivity" with no further explanation, I tend to think of the 2nd concept rather than the 1st.
@@aaronpulley7528 I"m no expert but my understanding Is that they are critiquing the idea of positioning oneself as objective and neutral. It"s not only that we are biased sometimes, we are biased all the time in various ways. It"s not just consciously putting forward opinions, but what data you choose to collect, what topics get funding, how you interpret the data, etc. White culture In America is positioned as neutral, but It isn"t. It is as racialized as any other identity, but we are conditioned to not see it that way. Furthermore I think what they are suggesting is that there is no "objective truth." Remember these people were Initially legal scholars, not hard scientists, or even social scientists, so they are coming at the Idea of truth from a different angle. Anointing someone as objective (even ones self) is tantamount to saying, "I pick your story as the true one."
India had Critical caste theory since independence (75 years) wherein a poor upper caste kid woulld be demoted when he's fighting for a seat in university while a rich lower caste guy would be considered as victim and would be proped by authorities. In 2023 there's hardly any castiesm and lower castes can change their religion to free themselves but still they stay as lower caste(get certificate made from govt) and stay hindu to get reservation. In India a upper caste dude would always be considered as oppressor while a rich lower caste(say president) would be considered as victim in academia. America has just got into critical race theory, we've been struggling with critical caste theory since independence due to demographics
Lol, WHITES ,for the entire existence of America had no problem with teaching and enforcing white supremecy,but now whites object to an academic analysis of what they have ,and are doing!!!!! Talk about snow flakes lol
@@tesmith47 True and still black people are here and they can succeed if they work within that very system. The real challenge isn't race it's class. Three people have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population. Race is a diversion so we don't see the real problem. Politics and the almighty D or R label is a great tool for division ad well.
@@midassnap9028 in America it has always been a class war , but disguised by ruling class whites with race, but the damage is done to the masses of Black folks, to point at the Few who have done better is disingus, it is not because of the system, but in spite of it. The advanced capitalism no longer needs to have a totally exploited internal resource
This video told me all I really need to know about CRT. I definitely understand why people would be angry about this being taught in schools. It's an ideology that preempts any possibility of rebuttal by anyone who doesn't already agree with the ideology, which is the surest sign of a bad idea. It preaches the destruction of society without any plans or ideas for how to rebuild afterwards. That's not revolution, that's regressive in the most aggressive way possible. That's how you make life worse for everyone in America, including the people you're trying to help.
That isn't the issue at hand though. CRT is generally horrible. However, if you ask the average politician even what CRT actually is they'd have no fucking idea. They'll attach it to things they simply don't like in order to get an emotional reaction that has nothing to do with CRT at all. That's how you get these dumb ass laws where you need to describe "both sides" of something like the holocaust.
I doubt there are more than a small handful of K-12 schools around the nation where CRT is taught in any form. The CRT label has been unfairly applied to a broad range of teaching or books about the history of racism in our country.
I thought Ibrahim X Kendi said that race is a social construct invented by racists (in the 1400s), but that, at least until that social construct is destroyed, we have to be aware of race in order to catch these sorts of societal remnants. To me, that makes me feel that, for at least that author, the goal is eventual assimilation (not blending together so that our own histories seem the same but just that we are all the same society) once we’ve addressed the negative impacts of racism.
Dude just explained one of the most controversial, lightning-rod issues as calmly as explaining how to fix a flat tire. Kudos brother, you are _really_ good at explaining things. I was afraid to even click the video and after I watched it I felt calmer and much more informed.
Italy is 50 miles from Africa…Spain is
technically less than 10 miles from Africa ...
People in the Mediterranean area have been
mixing for 100,000 years ... Former slaves in
north and south and central America have
been mixing for 400+ years ... NOW, If
someone is biracial do they get all the
reparations?
if someone is 1/4 Black do they get 1/4
reparations,
if someone is 10% Black do they get 10%
reparations?
my DNA test said I was one percent Black.
This video seems extremely racist…Tell me
how I might be wrong.
@@arthurallenbrown1305 wrong video! He's not debating that here. I'm sure there's some wokeies you can engage with on another video if it's that important to you.
Capitalist corporations promote identity politics.
Ryan tells his gullible audience that identity politics is "Marxism".
You may be calmer but you are the opposite of "informed".
@@Conserpov the corporations are being forced by the political movement. Any corporations that don't yield to leftism get decimated. Comply or die, just like conservative policing.
@mrpc5971 when you say "wokies' you kinda self report as the type of guy to use CRT to stoke the culture war flames
What makes Ryan's videos so effective is that he is not reckless with his vocabulary; every word has boundaries to it's meaning. If we let words become too fluid we are sacrificing our capabilities of rational discussion and thereby stunting our ability to find truth.
Language shapes reality.
I can think of two words that have become far too fluid of late, "Man" & "Woman" .. pretty simple words on their own, but apparently full "other meanings" . . Apparently!!
Agreed. Like "woke" and "groomer" and" open border" and "persecution".
_...we are sacrificing our capabilities of rational discussion..._
This is intended since rationality is a "evil male white" value. 😎
Like science, of course. PoC don't need science and search for the truth, they already know it. Like the Holy Mother Church in medieval times.
Welcome to the dork ages.
Wittgenstein
Had to skip through 50 videos to finally find this one just EXPLAINING the theory without screaming a policital viewpoint at me.
I couldn’t agree more. This is the objective approach that I was looking for.
@@stuartkeithguitars4251 if you’re right then he isn’t doing a very good job of it. He is clearly going against the mainstream media. I listened to NPR spend an hour talking about how CRT is simply teaching our children factual history. They left absolutely everything that this guy said out of the discussion.
@@stuartkeithguitars4251 you’re missing the point entirely. It would be even better if this guy is a full blown Marxist/Antifa flag flyer.
@@stuartkeithguitars4251 dude you’re confused. He’s clearly criticizing Marxism in his other videos. Most CRT supporters don’t want to admit it comes from Marxism. This guy reveals how it came from Marxism.
@@stuartkeithguitars4251 you must be a troll.
How anyone can think a mindset that willfully abandons objectivity and reason can possibly lead to anything good is beyond me.
It’s pretty cult like ngl. Actually, thinking about it, a lot of CRT seems like a cult. It’s fanatical, it’s demands loyalty, it claims it will make its adherents and society “better” without explaining how, etc. etc.
Religion
@@karenmiller8620Following religion teaching can lead to good results. Buddha's karma rule is a good examplem
Critical Race theory's ideas just lead to more segregation and racism.
@@chuchu5946believe in karma might make you act I a good way but it might also make you have unrealistic expecting since you have a distorded idea of how the world works.If you believe justice happens on itself you don't seek for it.
@@karenmiller8620Depends the word culture has the root word "cult" in it. According to standard historical facts along with archeological evidence cults or religious systems actually acted as a positive force of progress in the technological and inventive way a civilization developed. Then in other instances it could cause a destruction of a kingdom like when the selfish Pharoah Akhenaten reigned over Egypt and threw out its old polytheistic religion so he and his own ideas could be venerated which also caused Egypt to go into economic crisis because the previous religious view brought the trade flowing in and essentially ran ancient Egypt more successfully than Akkenatens more brutal cult system. Philosophy for today is the same thing but just not always with a spiritual or supernatural outlook. Philosophies like Marxist theory literally expressing zero tolerance for any philosophy than its own. This attitude is very cruel and can actually drive oppression.
Hey, here's an idea: How about we treat every person we meet just like we'd like to be treated by them?
Common sense and benign pragmatism, we can't have that here sir please leave 😂
If we thought this way 500 years ago we would be in a different world
There is a document like that called the Gospel or for non believers the Universal Declaration on Human. Rights authored by nations of the world in just 2 pages. This needs to be taught in schools first before CRT who's authors and message are a conflict mystery mess..
@@toldyouso5588 I question whether CRT is actually "taught" in schools at all. Maybe some particular university classes, but not in most high schools or grade schools. Of course, most U.S. states set up curricula for public schools. Also, local school districts add their own ideas to that. It seems what's really happening here is a concern about "revisionist history' and a fear of actually learning more facts about our past. Most lower-grade schools don't get into the details of history - there's no time for it at that level. Hell, I'm 77 and still learning details about how our Constitution was formed, how WWII started, and numerous other events in history that were only glossed over in elementary and high school. I went to art school, not college, then was drafted (Vietnam), then work, marriage, kids, etc. Who has time for more education during those days? Now we get it fed to us 24/7 from all directions. It's a minefield of contrary, and often controversial, information that takes hours to week through.
@@AlanStoneInGreece it's not being taught, it's being indoctrinated. Teachers teach, radicals brainwash.
this is all i can really afford to give you but this is awesome what you’re doing and i hope you get to continue making these videos. they’re so well put together and researched and i thoroughly enjoy watching them. keep it up!
Thank you for not trying to tell me how I should feel and just giving me information to allow me to make my own decisions. This almost never happens these days
It’s also the most dangerous thing to a CRT believer. It threatens the success of their optics and thereby threatens them achieving their goals.
The best argument against CRT is CRT itself.
However, the video definitely was telling people how to think about this topic through its analysis of CRT, which was very biased.
@@marcodemocracy10 well, thats your opinion. if you are so inclined to think so, perhaps make a rebuttal video about it.
@@trigjones wow. Who said I believe in CRT? As someone that has studied CRT for over 7 years, I do not find it a sound theory. I simply think that charlatans, like this guy, and most American liberals and conservatives don't know how to engage critical theory - mostly because we don't have a functional public education system and universities have become largely unachievable for most working class folk. I myself am a critic of CRT, I just dislike when bad faith discussions are had about any topic and this is a total bad faith video.
@@marcodemocracy10 Point out any part of it that you think is unfaithful, timestamp with notes ideally, so that there's more to what you're saying than a broad accusation...
Ryan is the sociology professor we all wish we had in college.
Brooklyn bridge is a bridge you all want to buy?
''sociology professor we all wish we had in college.''
Mr supercuck claiming ''white supremacy'' ova hea, don't think so!
I'd LOVE to hear the HONEST opinion of ''Critical theorists'' about ARAB or Ottoman slavery, millions of BLACK men castrated for their M0h4mmedan/islamic overlords, European KIDS brainwashed to fight their former country as slavesoldiers.
Probably that's ''not as bad because the perpetrators aren't completely white'' according to them.
Dude, I love your videos. No judgements, no biases, only information. I still double check the information you give which I encourage everyone else to do if you truly want to be an individual thinker.
he is definitely biased in his recent elonmusk video. But most of his videos are great
@@morphkogan8627 in what way? Just curious not trying to argue
@MD Every single human being on this planet and outside of it is biased
I agree. The only way to be a true objective thinker is to read up on all sides. I like clear explanations as Ryan did on CRT, and comparative reading of what others claim. CANNOT stand reading material that hurl abusive, judgemental attitudes about an author and their writings, who also offer no logical alternative.
@@Verna-m3iI agree. That's why when I have a debate with someone, the first thing I do is ask them to steel man my position in the most good faith way as possible and I will do the same for theirs. If you can't accurately convey what the other person is arguing, then you can form good counter arguments.
I’m a left leaning person, and something about CRT would rub me the wrong way, but I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt since many of the problems they identify are true and need to be solved, however in this video I’ve come to realize I’m whole heartedly in disagreement with their philosophy, and seems like a slippery slope to fascism. Their Utopia sounds like it would be nightmare.
The dictionary definition of racism is the discrimination of another group of people based solely on their recial identity.
CRT is a tool that strives to fight racism by favouring certain groups and discriminating on the basis of their race.
So to fight racial bias we as a society must become racially biased.
Fun stuff.
Good thing you woke up. This is a proper example of woke. Actually realizing the lefts religious obsession with their own extreme political beliefs.
The philosophy is to end institutional bias, I doubt you are against that. I have studied, used, and taught CRT for 30 years and I am completely satisfied with its goals, approach, and integrity. In the 80s I admit I was not happy with its lack of focus, on individual acts of racism and individual racist, but over the years I have come to appreciate the larger impact realized by focusing on institutional bias. This presenters sophmoric "book report" is not CRT. CRT is not Marxism or Post Modernism or any other fancy 'ism', it is simply a framework for ferreting out institutional bias; anything to the contrary is counterfeit.
@@mackmckinney5206 No, that a a persuasion that you use to justify using it. Just like a mormon would claim that they are for using the bible to justify their beliefs, when its clearly something else.
@@TimberWulfIsHere no, it is not a persuasion, your claIIm is just your excuse for justifying your antagonism. I feel absolutely no need to persuade doubters like you.
I feel like it becomes a bit difficult to take this theory seriously when it starts off by rejecting the notion of objectivity and not being biased.
Like, those aren't somehow specifically white aspects of academia, that's just academia, period. The standards of objectivity are there because academia stops delivering when you throw those notions our the window.
It's like saying "I want to revolutionize the world of boat building and I shall start by refuting the notion that boats ought to be vessels built to be able to cross large bodies of water. Instead, I want to promote a stationary vessel that is meant to be submerged deep under water." Congratulations, you just invented the diving bell, but that's simply not a boat.
Subjective writing with deliberate, political goals does exist, of course. But that falls under either activism or philosophy.
Another big issue is in redefining terms that are conmonly associated with something else.
If you are calling a person who never harboured any ill intent or prejudice towards others over their ethnicity racist for going about their life, then you are gonna lose most people.
If you call Morgan Freeman a white person for thriving within the system and advocating for colour blindness, people are gonna call you crazy.
I'm not one of those nutters who think CRT is somehow a threat to the national integrity of the United States, but it does have an air of echo chamber self-gratification. Which isn't surprising, considering all academic standards where explicitly thrown overboard right at the start for being too white.
I don't view CRT as a milestone in social progress if this is how they think.
The hysteria around CRT has only exposed how far-right talking points have become mainstream. Student-Graduates and officer-cadets have been reading about CRT for decades, and no one noticed. The alt-right use the same tactics that were used to discredit and distort the Civil Rights Movement and the Black Panthers.
"I'm not one of those nutters who think CRT is somehow a threat to the national integrity of the United States, but it does have an air of echo chamber self-gratification."
Oh, is it a nation destroyer? I don't know, but it certainly is quite divisive... which per definition works against national integrity.
"If you are calling a person who never harboured any ill intent or prejudice towards others over their ethnicity racist for going about their life, then you are gonna lose most people." That's not what CRT does. Why do you even think that?
@@rixille Watch the video for yourself.
Originally Marxism was about the class struggle. Now it's the race struggle but same modus operandi.
"We are not waging war against individual persons. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. During the investigation, do not look for evidence that the accused acted in deed or word against Soviet power. The first questions that you ought to put are: To what class does he belong? What is his origin? What is his education or profession? And it is these questions that ought to determine the fate of the accused. In this lies the significance and essence of the Red Terror."
Martin Latsis, chief of the Ukrainian Cheka, in the newspaper 'Krasny Terror' ('Red Terror', No. 1, Kazan, 1 November 1918
No, it is still about class struggle. Are you american? One core principle of Marxism is internationalism so I dont understand how Marxism can be about race?
@@aspiwri664 Of course. I should've written 'the Left'.
"What does this new society look like?" From what I've put together, It would look absolutely crippled.
If you take this ideology to its logical conclusion ...
It leads to the balkanization of the United States, into separate countries ... divided into skin colour ...
Which is why I've changed my mind about this, thanks to this information.
CRT is indeed anti-American. Basically the idea that we can not all or certainly a lot of us ... Come together to become one .... Incorporating our various histories into a shared amalgam ... Is in deed a non-American idea.
It's like suggesting a couple could be married but live separate lives? And then raise kids that had to choose what parent they loved more.
No wonder these people are so mean and nasty.
Critical race theory is poison. Its aposed to everything Martin Luther king stood for.
You people are lost in the forest! Never to return to reality!
@@jimgeistlinger3545 I think many of us have come to the same conclusion. It's been weaponized to be spread out like a poison, attacking even the innocent in it's path of destruction. The absolute denial of people's character as individuals is terribly toxic.
Oh it's not hard to imagine at all. Just thonk of Germany during the late 30's and early 40's. And no, that's not being hyperbolic. Critical Race Theory os litteraly just National Socialism for black people.
Theories that change the meaning of words are always suspect.
Words and "un-words". Sounds familiar.
@@johnssiroid4439 Literally 1984
@@imstuff2499 1984 in the most Woke way possible.
@@imstuff2499 what do you mean by 1984, educate me
@@kimberlylewis8148 Read 1984 by George Orwell
Props to this guy for sacrificing so many of his neurons swimming through this sea of intellectual bullshit to deliver us this comprehensive and politically neutral video! A sincere thank you, my man!
I couldn't have said it better!
This is the correct answer!
Yes!
Hard for me to call it intellectual when "neutral, objective and balanced" are essentially replaced with subjective bogus like storytelling.
@@patham9 you mean the books he's describing? I said "intellectual bullshit" though.
Loved the video. I'm having a hard time understanding why academics being neutral, objective and balanced is anything but desirable. Being NOB does not preclude discussions of how subtle racism undermines our society. It does not preclude feeling that racism has caused deep divides on our country, and that big improvements are worth working for. To me NOB is the definition of true academia. And a worthy goal of every thinking person.
Yeah I’m having a hard time understanding why being NOB is bad and is only a facet of white culture when it certainly seems like the best method in pursuits of truth
@@spookypig8043the point is that people -especially white people - have a skewed perception of what "neutral, objective and balanced" is. Neutral, objective and balanced cannot exist when every culture/person within a culture has some sort of bias. This might be hard to stomach since people want to find a quick and easy solution for issues like racism - often through the guise of being neutral, objective and balanced, but in reality this stance is impossible to obtain.
This doesn't meant throwing facts and evidence and understand your debate etc. away, that is silly, but it does mean that trying to act as an academic absolute - one who is neutral, objective and balanced - isn't particularly helpful.
Culture can not be viewed through an NOB lense.
@@spookypig8043 "NOB is bad" is a concept propagated by the ruling class to obfuscate the material reality. When the working class realises that they all live in a material reality and therefore share common interests (e.g. leading meaningful lives) they will throw out the parasites and fully enjoy the fruits of their labour. So the parasites are trying to delay that realisation.
The counter-argument amounts to "You can't be perfectly neutral, objective, and balanced. So why even try?" It's like saying "why bother having morals?" b/c you will fail sometimes.
@@ChollieD having morals is attainable, being objective, neutral and balanced isn't.
I'm seeing so many logical fallacies and problems with CRT just from this video alone.
No doubt. I’m going to investigate who these racial theorists are. Because this sure seems political to me.
@Freddie Jones He actually wasn’t wrong at all. He may have been quite crass and unnecessarily aggressive in terms of his response, but what he said was indeed factual. CRT is very much rooted in Marxist thought(though it replaces class with racial identity) in that it views everything through the dynamics of power and believes that all societal issues and conflicts involving people can all easily be broken down into those who are either the oppressed or the oppressor. Another very influential figure for critical race theorists was a man named Herbert Marcuse and in particular his 1965 essay entitled ‘Repressive Tolerance’.
@Freddie Jones So what if Wikipedia doesn't link CRT with Marxism? The policies that CRT pushers want enacted are Marxist.
@Freddie Jones says "it doesn't say crt has anything to do with marxism in Wikipedia."
Oh..... Wikipedia 'Critical race theory" second paragraph it says: 'CRT is grounded in *critical theory[8]* and draws from thinkers such as Antonio Gramsci"
References [8] Crenshaw, Kimberlé; Gotanda, Neil; Peller, Gary; Thomas, Kendall, eds. (1995). Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement. New York: The New Press. ISBN 978-1565842717.
Wikipedia " *Critical Theory* " second paragraph: "In sociology and political philosophy, "Critical Theory" means the Western-*Marxist* philosophy of the Frankfurt School, developed in Germany in the 1930s and drawing on the ideas of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud... Modern critical theory has also been influenced by György Lukács and Antonio Gramsci,"
Who are Lukács and Gramsci? Hungarian and Italian *Marxists* !!! ;^D
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci
Polarization and division is the foundation of CRT
Yep, this all being done on purpose
The Truth must be taught about America's History to All by Scholarly Righteous Individuals Period! America's historical falsehood must end, it remains unfair and unjust to Blacks, Whites and to People of Color.
@@debrawilliams2781 says who?
@Awake420 You're sleeping! What are black people dependent on whites for?
@@debrawilliams2781 yes truth must be taught together with forgiveness, color blinded ness and unity. Perpretrating victimhoodand control must be eradicated as we teach the truth. MLK is a good example . Without this we continue to perpetuate the cycle of oppression and control
Wow came here to learn more and now I’m against critical race theory, anything that tells you not to approach academia in a neutral or balanced view is not worth being taught.
I came here because everyone who agrees with this always describes it in ridiculously vague terms. Now I see why. It's literally just a new form of racism trying to weasel it's way into our schools and government.
Nope, you both missed the thing. There is no "don't approach academia in a neutral or balanced view" - the point is that we don't and can't. That's not a thing in reach for any individual. CRT is saying "don't treat academia that way because it isn't." The academia we have is largely white-biased academia.
The difference is that, in being aware of this, you can actually run closer to true neutrality. That is the aim, not the other way around.
As for CRT being vague, well... it's a philosophical framework. The un-vague specifics will come from those using CRT to observe, critique and correct our institutions. Most theory comes off this way, vague to those who aren't using it and haven't yet seen specific prescriptions birthed from the theory.
I'm totally lost on how you get to "a new form of racism trying to weasel...", you're saying "acknowledging that racism exists is its own form of racism"? CRT is literally "racism does exist, let's pay attention to it and try to counterbalance its effects." How is that racist? Is there some specific line that you're seeing as racist?
I think CRT defense for this approach is that it believes race should be a higher level concept before institutions. Therefore it supersedes the structure of academia, academia when under its current umbrella.
@@realJimMarshall it is not racism but a set of lense to better identify racism and to its benefit it offers some possible resolution to the problem that we all know or don't know that we face.
@@jacobunderwood4957 I disagree with your assessment. And so does the creator of this video apparently. No one would argue that racism doesn't exist. No one would argue that we shouldn't point out racism where it exists. At least, no one that isn't actually racist. The issue people have with CRT goes way beyond what you describe here. Vague terms. No actually successful application. No long term outlook. Changing the definition of racism to fit a political agenda. The idea that people are trying to teach our children to always view others through a racial lens. The proposal of re-segregation. The list goes on. You are being intellectually dishonest by boiling CRT down to 'we're just trying to help'. I believe that some people do just want to help. But there are a whole lot of people who just want to see the world burn. A lot of what I mentioned, any normal person would view as 'racist'. Especially because we'd be using the traditional definition of 'racism'. Not the version of racism that was created to push an ideological slant.
There is a very high risk to raising race consciousness among the public at large and applying oppressed/oppressor labels based on race.
So far, there is a predictable resentment growing among whites of the lower economic classes to being called “privileged”.
That resentment is quickly turning to anger which will be easily manipulated into violence if there is not a course change.
What about the actual violence being committed against those who marxists deem " priveleged"? 90% of the interracial violent crimes are blaq on whyte.
“Look what you made us do” ? The oppressor oppressed dynamic was not created by people pushing critical race theory. Their point is to dismantle it. If you don’t quite understand i would go watch “some more news” and their videos about systemic racism. Or shauns video about white supremacy
@@spencerhinds2803 I hope you'll think back on this comment and remember, you asked for it.
@@Chung_Wang what are you even saying my guy
@spencerhinds2803 CRT is built on the idea that society can be divided into oppressed and oppressor.
I don't claim to be color-blind, I just don't see race as a defining characteristic when determining someone's value as a person. I would hate to think what that makes me.
Your belief is what i think as the right approach to race question. Accept it. But dont discriminate on ground of race. But dont pretend to be colour blind.
It makes you a critical race theorist
@@zodinthara7925 This. 100%. A barbershop is a good example. Everyone pays the same for a haircut and a trim, everyone is allowed to have one, but different races have different hair textures and styles. You cant cut trim and style an african-american persons hair with the same products and techniques as a white persons hair, they *are different* and need to be approached accordingly, no amount of "color-blindness" will ever change that. But informing yourself about a culture and finding non-discriminitory ways to accept and accommodate for it, can help make life easier for everyone.
I honestly lived my whole live beein colorblind in the meaning that i give a shit what your race is.
I don't care i see you as an individuum.i might be interested in your culture and lifestyle but your origins never account what makes you an individual.
i think this is the most fairest approach out there...everyone i ever talked too agreed and was really happy with the way i treated them.
But now suddenly this type of behaviour is supposed to be racist...and instead we are supposed to be super focussed on race and judge people based on it?
Blacks are always at a disadvantage...whites are always priviledged... come on wtf...you can't be serious about this
this is literally the definition of racism in its true meaning (and not the bullshit one people are trying to make)
@david wilson cool
I expected this to be an apologetic for crt, instead it was quite honest. CRT cannot withstand an honest examination so I hope this video goes viral.
Agree. But it will not because it doesn't work with the fast-food narrative "white supremacy, every white person is racist, every non-white person is a victim".
@@UnifyCarmel you're right. unfortunately.
Google owns RUclips and like every other Fortune 500 company they are pushing the same geopolitical (globalist) narrative. What they promote strikes me as an awkward marriage between Neo Marxism and Fascism. No doubt their "ML Fairness" algorithms are effective at impeding relevant information from reaching the masses. Besides, how many people really care about the world around them enough to investigate political philosophy.
Sounds like you're strongly in favor of CRT being taught in schools
@@Theyungcity23 not sure how you got that from my comment.
It's neoracism. The rejection of the individual for right think according to your group.
Yeah that’s a bullshit statement
@@loveparkes seems pretty accurate to me
@@Tambaha good thing you’re nobody
Actually it attacks the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of every individual which the communist (Soviets) object to wanting collective human rights, they mean the government says what and which rights, communist herd mentality.
@@toldyouso5588 blah blah blah
The basic concept of the definition of racism is applying stereotypes to individuals based on belonging to a group based on race or color. This along with monolithic attitudes towards race in that everyone within that category has to think like what the stereotype dictates.
Yes, but some stereotypes are true
No it isn't. Race is a science that white europeans came up with, and they invented it with the express purpose of explaining why europeans should be on top, and it was an integral part of society building in america and to a lesser extent europe.
Racism is just that science applied.
@@Yatagurusu congrats for winning RUclipss most misinformed commentator award
@@jdenmark1287 no you're actually right racism was invented by black people to stay slaves in 1750 when white people taught them how to farm and dig wells and took them on luxury cruises across the atlantic
@@Yatagurusu you know science say race dont existe right . we are the humain race . and skin color are just variation that sit
I really appreciate how calm you are while laying this stuff out. It's hard to process these perspectives without feeling a little emotional for anyone who also cares about reality and isn't naturally wired to be so focused on race.
Right!?
I consider myself a very self aware person, however I can't help but get my blood pressure up when ever ithis sort of thing comes up in conversation!
Same - I appreicate his rational approach to this subject without resorting to rhetoric that often makes things more divisive.
Caring about Reality claim + having Selective amnesia = delusional
Are you Kenyan or Tanzanian?
@@dextermorgan7441 No... but I am Black and from Detroit so what's your point in asking where am from?
I want critical height theory!! I’ve been vertically challenged all my life and this oppressive hieghtriachry must answer for all the people who are taller than me. I need a short safe space.
I have a dark birthmark on one of my legs. Does that mean I'm 2% oppressed?
i don't if i should be more disappointed by this condescending comment or the people who liked it
You are so lucky, you can by a small house and live like you are in a mansion!
@@MrDeni23n ... and 98% a _'White Supremicist'_
Ignoring your smug fuckery, it's actually an interesting point that rules laws norms and more are always set by first the most powerful and second, the majority. But....keep up the trolling you tool!
First of all, I did like the video. It was rather fair and informative without being terribly misleading. I do not wish for anyone to think that I am being critical of this video. I am not. However, to truly understand CRT, one MUST begin with the true origin of CRT being a legal argument hypothetical. Please allow that to sink in for a moment. It was strictly designed for hypothetical legal discussions in a law school. It was devised for the training of lawyers. And when utilized in mock trials, it has failed miserably since the late 1960. It was Calmore, Crenshaw, and Kendi that stole the concept and spun it into a social narrative, complete with definitions of new term that they invented themselves to support the transfer from law school hypothetical to highly radicalized societal narrative. CRT as a societal theory is a lie from the beginning. Their interpretation is based on a platform of pure racism directly strictly at caucasians. And as has been proven repeatedly in mock trials for over 50 years, CRT does NOT stand up in court. It is just a new form of prejudice and an excuse to perpetuate racial hatred. I bid you peace.
would love to hear more in video format.
At 17:26, he reads a passage about how it has became so integrated into society that people don't even realise it. Kentaji Brown Jackson said in a 2015 lecture
"I also try to convince my students that sentencing is just plain interesting on an intellectual level, in part because it melds together myriad types of law - criminal law, of course, but also administrative law, constitutional law, critical race theory, negotiations and, to some extent, even contracts."
and now she has been comfirmed into the SCOTUS. CRT may soon stand up in court, as many Critical Race Theorists are and already have infiltrated the judicial system. Only the future can tell.
So, in a nutshell, by their personal experience and subjective opinions they consider themselves oppressed. The oppression is so all encompassing the only way to remove it is to completely deconstruct present society and they are actively working towards that end. The present system will be replaced by... we're not sure yet but we'll know it when we see it. Further, all of the oppressed people working for change will be in total agreement on the nature of the currently undefined replacement society. It's laughable right up to the point where they start beating and shooting those who disagree.
Hey Doyle, go eat tide pods
@@pantslesswrock brilliant assessment, simply brilliant.
Constant struggle + heightened awareness = a racism free future. That's a lot of faith.
Not to mention the claim that those in the minority are born with an innate 'authentic' culture, that their own culture is not the result of historical events in their own home country, and as much a construct as 'white' culture is.
Hhhmmm who else wants a constant struggle? Have you herd the term jihad? Kamf? 9f the course the sources why a moder westerner has heard those are pretty bad. In truth they are just words in different languages but we know them bc so bad people called for a similar struggle and it has led to extremism and death.
@@zionbrin1 Totally why systemic racism is a problem and CRT helps identify the unsustainable outcomes of those who struggle to remain in denial.
@@zionbrin1 yeah, so Marxism leading to race-nationalism aimed predominantly at the youth in order to create something akin to a new world order?
Where have we heard that before?
Sounds like the Nazis
“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
― George Orwell
Jesus christ man
Exactly
Ah yes. One of my top 10 socialists
@@justjd5011 I'm a fan of Einstein as well. His book "Ideas and Opinions" was a full-throated argument for socialism.
I believe that would be "argument from authority."
And as with any use of a logical fallacy, you are now disqualified from this debate.
"Weak minds use other people's words"
-- Mark Twain 🙄
We do not like racism!
How do we fight racism then?
By dividing people into races?
Well, well well... if it isn't the consequences of my own actions.
The solution to alleged racial discrimination, is open racial discrimination!
What happened at the tower of Babylon again????
@@benjiusofficial But Covid Kill Cats
No more travel
ruclips.net/video/bpQFCcSI0pU/видео.html
But People are already divided into races…. That’s why they’re called races lol Ignoring race isn’t the solution
Outstanding summary. As a CPA that happens to be black, I've been exposed to and have had conversations with several individuals that support and advance "critical race theory". It seems reasonable to test your theory in a limited way to determine something more than a "theory" prior to general application. They want a "theory" accepted without any evidence of the potential result. That's unwise in most endeavors. Also, you've expressed the summary of what I've experienced in conversations with them. I think you're in the 90%++ accuracy range on this. Also, I believe there's evidence of a strong Marxist movement among blacks from the late 1800's and Marxism is not an uncommon goal of many blacks I've known. I believe you've "nailed it". Thanks for the video and saving me time researching it myself.👍
CRT has this warped view that culture is tied to race, when it couldn't be further from the truth.
You really should still research it for yourself and not trust RUclipsrs and social media personalities, even ones with a veneer of centrism.
@@BillyOcean336 I have researched it myself, and Ryan is correct about CRT being retreaded revolutionary Marxism based on race instead of class. And since it is race based, it's actually akin to National Socialism and reminiscent of ANC philosophy - and we've seen how well that has worked out in South Africa and Zimbabwe.
@@mikeguilmette776 calling CRT Marxism is absolutist. Like any academic discipline, it draws from multiple theories. MLK was considered a communist by his detractors in his time.
Marxism is the key - that's why the ruling class tries to derail it. Read Marx, Engels and Lenin and life will get better for everyone, except for loan sharks and such.
8:55 I think this is a crucial misunderstanding. To be politically motivated in academia does not mean you "slant your academic findings". It means your research project aims at finding knowledge that makes a certain social transformation possible.
So for example, if I am a feminist scholar, I might do research into sexual assault and what can prevent it. My goal with this research is political: I aim to change society such that less sexual assault happens. This does not however mean that I am in any way compromising my academic integrity. The difference is often poorly understood in conservative circles, so it is really worth stressing this.
Makes much more sense
Watch his video on post modernism, he covers how the social justice movement uses social deconstructionism to silence language and studies they deem counter productive to their agenda.
@@Hhhhhhhhjdjjdd I have watched it and I can't find any clear claim of his. It's kindoff nasty how he makes these videos tbh. Making lot's of true statements, and then sprinkling in these wild leaps that are completely unfounded.
I’m a little lost on how he could read the passage he highlighted and make the statement he did.
It’s not a case of happening to not read this specific passage, and missing it. He went to the effort of boxing it in red and holding it up.
But… it doesn’t say a single thing about slanting results or findings. It just says they want to get paid for work that also pursues political goals.
Like choosing to work at a locally owned rather than corporate retail store, or pursue an engineering job in clean energy development rather than oil and gas.
Or, in academia, an epidemiologist might study some source of systemic health inequality like redlining’s generational impact on doctor access rather than taking a position in pharmaco-epi at Merk.
@@noor5x9Well that's kind of what post post-modernists do. Facts to them aren't objective, they're just extensions of social power.
Many of these concepts seem abjectly opposed to the entire Bill of Rights.
One of the end goals of CRT supporters in the USA is the destruction of the constitution.
The bill of rights is barely worth the paper it's written on.
@@FatalCharade can you give an example with physical evidence?
@TFU Studios Critical race theorists and black supremacists hate the rule of law, and hate the fact that white wrote the laws and made the principles that started this great country that has more black millionaires than anywhere in the world. Somehow being a white law make equates to society being racist regardless of the laws the support.
@@rainbowodysseybyjonlion yeah the constitution for one
The major flaw in this theory is the simple fact that "I" am not "my body". Everything about this theory assumes that if "I" have a body that a culture and value set and thus a way of thinking automatically comes along with my body.
Is it was it is
The theory is about law and institutions of government not the individual
@@Baman21 I agree that a lack of indiviuality is the weak point of this system. The strength of a system is in how well it scales. A system such as a form of government should exist to be of benefit to the individual and not just a system to benefit the system. Without benefit to the foundation of a system a system will fall apart under it's own complexity. As we are collections of individuals the systems we create should benifit indiviuality this in turn can create individuals who can create systems that are of greater benefit and becomes a positive feedback loop. The system in the video ignores the basic of indiviuality and skips directly to group this ignores the foundation of what a group exists for in the first place. It is a *great* system if you are an individual who wishes to control groups. I can see great benefit in that.
How did you get that out of this video? If it were all about the body CRT wouldn't mention integration because it wouldn't be possible
The worst part IMO is that it says it's against racsim, but it's fundamentally racist.
What I hear is a lot of circular reasoning in CRT.
In another word, sophistry.
It's all circular.
@@Sally_Joe how?
Dear Ryan, your analysis of CRT is neutral, objective and balanced. In other words, it is the exact thing that CRT aims to suppress.
Which demonstrates the futility of CRT . It’s all BS . It’s all collective nonsense. And it’s funny the CRT is based on philosophies of - white people .
🤦🤦♂🤦♀
CRT: Capitalist ideology
Ryan: "CRT is Marxist"
@@Conserpov How is CRT capitalist?
@@L-8
"How are Blackrock, Soros, media corporations Capitalist?"
Go outside and touch grass.
@@Conserpov I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you're going to bother writing empty comments and responding to questions without actually answering them, perhaps you should "go outside and touch grass."
Ryan is literally the only human I trust to accurately cover these topics.
Thank you.
sounds like you could benefit from learning some more critical thinking and learning about different perspectives
@@OleSandberg gee, thanks
You have chosen...poorly.
@@kerryjacoby9438 well who would you choose?
@@joshuabela5374 Ph.D. academics and law professors over the last 60 years of jurisprudential discourse. Start with "Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement." Read all of it. Read everything they reference and footnote. Continue doing that until you have read as many of them as are still available. Then look for the next writings of all the major authors of the book and read those the same way. Keep doing this until you find the last book actually written by a knowledgeable academic on the subject. Then go back and watch this again. And you'll understand just how amateurish and incomplete it is.
This was amazing. You have encapsulated CRT in a 20 minute video without strawmanning, and with crediting original sources. ALL parents and teachers must watch this.
And you know, people in general. You sound a bit like you only care to indoctrinate children with that attitude of yours.
Interesting that you would mention 'straw manning', since that is exactly what the presenter did; he imagined all of these boogiemen, such as critical theory, marxism, modernism, post modernism then slayed them as his critique; CRT is none of those things, it just identifies disparity and remediates it.
Parents and teachers don't need to watch this as Critical Race Theory only exists in a advanced academic sense. Children are not exposed to most lofty academic debates, instead they are either not taught about race at all or instead are introduced to basic racial concepts and race history which is not them having anything to do with CRT.
Teachers do not teach CRT. They teach Math, LA, History/SS and Science and how to be a good person and be kind to others.
@@mackmckinney5206 thinks CRT just materialized out of thin air.
Thanks! This was very well done. This is the second of your videos that I’ve watched, and is the kind of inflammable, and seemingly non-manipulative, content so many of us are so desperate to hear.
@Russ Olson Preach the news.
@Russ Olson I was going to ask you to give examples of how this is manipulative, but I first checked the publication dates of the five sources he uses, based on your comment that all his sources are 40 years old. Aside from "Traditional and Critical Theory" by Max Horkheimer (1937), the remainder of his sources are from 1996 - 2019. And this isn't an interview channel, so your argument that he didn't Interview anyone current seem deceptive. So now I wouldn't trust a thing you say.
@@ccarello1 I do hope he's not actually a sociologist, but that was probably the only truth in his rebuttal.
There is a certain "Alice in Wonderland " quality to CRT (especially in building the airplane while already flying it, as it were) This is NOT a criticism of you, Ryan Chapman. To the contrary, your approach helped clarify the paradoxical nature of some parts of the theory, such as , if you are not A you are B, but if you are using the language of A, it's because you are oppressed into submission to think like A. (or something like it).The "Alice" quality I refer to is in her conversation with Humpty Dumpty, which goes like this:
-- don't know what you you mean by "glory," "Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled . contemptuously 'of course you don't--till tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!" '
--'But "glory' doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.
--'When I use word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean --neither more nor less.' etc.
As a mathematician who knows that Alice in Wonderland was a satire on modern mathematics. Lewis Carroll objected to detaching mathematics from real world and he was completely wrong on that, to the point that only detached from reality mathematics is viewed as proper mathematics by mathematicians today and what he was defending is today look down upon as "elementary mathematics". And basically all his mathematical ideals he was defending in Alice in Wonderland were abandoned as flawed. And yet people to this day find in flawed mathematical analogies something that has a merit outside mathematics. This itself is quite fascinating.
If I had just walked in on someone watching the whole "race-consciousness" segment, I'd literally think this guy was talking about the Nazis.
Yes first thing I thought, being “race conscious” is a term I’ve heard neo nazis use
Thats because critical race theory is just national socialism for black people.
It's sad when people say "well this here is OBVIOUSLY bullshit. Of COURSE we see through this propaganda!" ....aaaand then just equate it all to nazis, as if their beliefs were remotely alike. "CRT is just national socialism for black people!" Holy braincells. If you think that knowing that you are a folk and that it is in your own self interest to defend yourselves EQUALS inventing 'race conscious' politi-speak in order to invent reasons to hate White people for everything... then maybe *you're* the indoctrinated one.
@@Red_Devil_2011 its useless , its worthless , it was created by marxists ; that says it all ! its not about knowledge , its about idiocy and malevolence , but i guess you're too " enlightened " to see that.
@@Red_Devil_2011 marxists aren't the only imbeciles in the world. the ' nation of islam ' " believe a black scientist 6500 yrs. ago created white people . and the precursors of the nazis in the early20th century believed a white scientist 10, 000 yrs ago created non whites. crt is just an other marxist angle on how civilization is totally corrupted and only intellectuals of "knowledge and wisdom " lol, can come up with something better. btw the u.s didn't invent slavery nor the reality that sometimes minorities don't feel totally comfortable because they're a minority.some people arent uncomfortable about it. some individuals are whiners some aint. the whiners and fools are fodder for the propagandists and revolutionaries( yeah the commies are fuc#n with your heads)!!
Theories that label facts a "myth" are suspect.
Especially when they can't empirically define what that myth is. Can a myth within a myth be factual?
@@andrewjaman4697 Facts aren't subjective. No matter how much the left wants them to be - they aren't. Facts are real. They cant be changed. And they don't care how you feel about that.
Suspect? Sus? Sussy?
@@andrewjaman4697 It's a myth to think myths are factual. A myth by definition is mythical. Don't fall into thinking a myth is not a myth if its mythical origins were not entirely based on myth. Hope that entirely clears things up.
@@secondarycontainment4727 Facts are statistical and not truisms. The only facts are tautological or deductive from definition. Russell's paradox, Godel's incompleteness theorem, Turing's halting problem with regards to superdeterminism.
Remember the foundations of empiricism, phenomenology and epistemology.
But, outside of that, yeah, postmodernism is trash. Rejection of rationale and empiricism in favor of subjective experiential "reality" is a monumental regression and, if left unchecked, will be the downfall of humanity.
They're cherry picking Malcolm Xs work too. He changed his stances radically towards the end of his life.
He did and that's when people wanted him killed.
@@hithere748 Yeah he changed his mind, but that just means, according to CRT, that he became a White Supremacist.
The only stance that changed was that all white people aren't evil. He never changed his views on America's treatment of blacks or reparations. But I guess people are going to attempt to revise his views the way they revise MLK's.
@@Cagon415 I think MLK was a bit more focused on class
According to CRT MLK was wrong when he said to judge a man by the content of his character not by the color of his skin. In CRT we only judge a man by the color of his skin.
Thanks! Very good explanation. Informative and to the point.
As a black woman with no kids in the school system I’ve never bothered to read about this theory thanks so so much for making your video about it non intimidating I thought it was going to be heavy on academics I could easily share this in a non political group of I belong in
it has a lot to do with every aspect of American society and American culture. WE don't have any example of any other culture anywhere on the planet. It's all been tainted by Americanism. Africans are also Americanized. We just don't know it because we are led to believe that whitepeople only went to Africa to get slaves, and left the rest of the people alone... The genocide of the American Native, is the same genocide that Africa, Austrailia, India, Mexico, Canada, South America have been distracted from by DEMOCRACY, JOBS, MONEY, ECONOMY which are Americanised racist principle systems which we are born into... "born into a world of sin" Funny how Democracy and Christianity are all over the world. Funny how a jealous god messes up the idea that people could actually love one another.
@@jonchristian5069 this theory will not bring about any love.
Don't share it. It's wrong. It's a non-expert attempting to communicate a set of theories he doesn't understand. CRT is an area of theory that deals with the question of why de facto (in real life) racism persists even after the law and the civil rights movement took deliberate steps to end it. That's it. It's seminars and roundtables at annual professional meetings (like the American Political Science Association annual meeting). It's papers in professional journals. It's coffee talks and brown bag lunches. It's not a high-school class on slavery or an exercise in essay-writing in a Civil War history class. It's not telling third-graders about the genocide of Natives, or giving kindergarteners a coloring page about Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks during Black History month.
The fact that people (especially Republicans) won't even try to comprehend what CRT is and prefer to use its name to make people afraid of things it actually is not just betrays how ignorant this whole societal "debate" really is. If someone tells you something is "CRT" and you should fear it, you can bet it isn't and they have another agenda.
@@kerryjacoby9438 How is it wrong? He cites directly from many sources that those on both the left and right invoke?
@@andrewokr16 citing sources out of context is not the way to interpret complex jurisprudential theory. If you do not read all of it, you can't understand any of it.
How can ANYONE think “yeah, that sounds like a great idea!”!?!?!?!
Nobody actually does thing this is a "great idea" it is a marxist plot to destroy America as so many other plots, and there are people who hate "white" people so much that they will destroy themselves in the process of destroying us. Logic never comes into the discussion.
@@hardmoneysolutions I agree with your comment except that I think there are people who actually think this a good idea. Many of them white. You can’t fix stupid.
@@hardmoneysolutions Ah yes, trying to destroy America! Making up scenarios in your head and then using them in an argument is a bit much,
If you end up thinking that after watching a video about a widely accepted theory, you know you didn't watch an objective video, no matter how hard they try and dupe you into thinking it is objective.
@@Schmitty34 not really, if you study history at all, the fingerprints of marxist destruction are all over CRT. And, this theory is not all that complicated, in fact it is quite simple and easy to understand, even for someone like you who obviously knows very little about history. When people are given something they did not earn, it severely impacts their psyche and sense of worth becomes over blown. The next step is to destroy things. Children do this, and adults who have been given power they did not earn do this. But to explain in detail to a closed minded person would be impossible and would take a very long time, and you would not listen or read it anyway, so be comfortable with your shallow understanding of this topic and have a good day.
people need to be critical about critical race theory. this whole thing makes my brain dysfunctionally crippled.
That speaks volumes about you. Maybe you ought to involve yourself with less profound things that don't dysfunctionally cripple your brain. Thinking isn't for everyone.
@@Glicksman1 Not being a douche isn't either. Move on, wokie.
@@Glicksman1 that speaks volume about you. thinking is for everyone.
@@annisafebriyanti693 Well, since you don't seem to do it, I guess you're wrong. Everyone ought to think, but clearly, not everyone does.
@@Glicksman1 well, since my brain has become dysfunctionally crippled in order to make sense, i guess you're right 'thinking isn't for everyone'. everyone ought to think, but clearly, not everyone does.
Great video. It's odd to me to want to "change everything at once" - but not have an answer to what that looks like.
Seems like: not liking the leaking roof of your house - and deciding to burn the whole house to the ground - before you have the means to build a better house.
Enough people having race consciousness is a prerequisite to knowing how to change society.
Oh, they HAVE an idea of what the end goal looks like -- it's the typical successful-post-Marxist-revolution utopia that will be attained "after the successful revolution" -- but their current plan is always to bring about The Revolution. They don't SAY that for two reasons: 1) Because it would sound ridiculously airy-fairy utopian, (especially after the crashes of all the prospective marxist utopias in the 20th century) and ,2) because leaving the endpoint open disguises the fact that in reality the class-war (for Marx, persecution of the Bourgeoisie, for CRT-ists the persecution of "white oppressors") is a forever war. Even when only vaguely based on Marxism, the "definitional oppressor/oppressed" dichotomy used is always used as an excuse for claiming that anything "you, the good oppressed person" can identify as "the oppressor" serves as perpetual moral justification for action-against.
The "short-form" of any "definitional oppressor/oppressed" political theory is always: "Look at this justification for our group wielding all the political power: It is the only moral way." They just prefer that to not be explicit, lest people figure it out and go "That sounds awfully like a really shaky excuse for a naked power grab!"
A different way to think of any "definitional oppressor/oppressed" political theory is as a secular religion specifying the oppressed group as "The Chosen People" and Original Sin condemning "The Bad People." Religion isn't the 1st thing that comes to mind, obviously, but if you look at how they wield guilt and "sin" -- along with sort of vaguely dangling sort of nebulous hope for forgiveness -- it is easy to see a parallel.
@@paulwblair Taking the emphasis off of race consciousness and putting it on character consciousness seems like a more useful approach.
@@paulwblair Enough people having race conciousness is a prerequisite for having another racist dystopia.
It’s less a leaking roof and more realising that your entire house that provides you shelter is built out of human bones.
The problem here is that America has changed since 1970, we’ve grown up with equal civil rights for all while generations of numerous ethnicities have simulated with each other while sharing each other’s traditions which makes Americans so unique in the first place. No other country does what we do.
💪🇺🇸🗽
You realize there are other countries with different cultures in them right?
Have you every been to Canada
This is the best explanation of Critical Race Theory that I could find on the internet, thank you for your work and the time you put in!
@@stuartkeithguitars4251 the guy literally gave a critical analysis of what the theory is, based on what proponents of it have written about it. He highlighted what he was quoting from the books themselves. He also makes the point that we can decide for ourselves what we think about the theory. A person could watch this video and leave it feeling positive or negative about the theory. It is really based on outlook.
This kind of explanation was what I was expecting too
Sent it to my school board members
A big thank you from Germany for this enlightened explanation!
It leaves alot out and seems to normalize these ideas it quotes German philosophers that wrote their books during nazi Germany but ya that's who we should listen to
This primer moved me from being tentatively pro-CRT to being quite strongly against it. I'll have to do more reading but if this video is a fair presentation of the ideas, my problems with CRT go beyond just what I was exposed to by reading Robin DiAngelo and having conversations with left-leaning people.
I still think the way conservative pundits talk about CRT is worryingly inaccurate, but when you cut through the noise and focus on the real thing there's a lot more credence to the idea that CRT is racist than I realised.
I think the conservative pundits focus too much on the fact that it's being implemented by left-wing people rather than the ideas of CRT itself and explain the problems within CRT.
What I believe to be the grain of truth in CRT is the fact the culture of minorities are reduced and disappear because of the influence of the majority. It's really made me think more about whether integration is completely good because some aspects of Native American culture have been completely lost due to the Europeans dominating America.
But on the other hand, I believe in liberal democracy and it's better to live under that then a tribal society. So I guess that puts me at odds with CRT advocates because liberal democracy should technically be a white supremacist ideology because it was conceived by white people.
@@yoshimitsu8922 you were coolin until about that last sentence. Since when does CRT argue that philosophies conceptualized by white supremacists make those inherently white supremacist ideologies?
There is the case that America was founded on white supremacist principals, but those principals are not static and have evolved along with the rest of the world.
I’m having a hard time figuring out how you would reach that conclusion without inputting some of your own biases into the equation.
A reply to someone else that may have value to you as someone who has studied critical theory for a very short time.
"I understand critical race theory's rejection of objectivity and non-bias to be more a questioning of if objectivity and non-bias is even possible, which is an unresolved philosophical debate. CRT falls on the side of the debate that objectivity is impossible. Given this, what is considered "objective" is influenced by the subjective.
If you're worried about academia as a whole, critical theorists would be excited! Academia is built on an approximation to "objectivity" that works well enough, but it's an "objectivity" that is created by academics. That's well and good for things like the physical world, because that's consistently experienced (and thus consistent subjectively), but not so much for the social world, as that's inconsistently experienced by different people (for a wide range of reasons, race being one)."
@@BlapwardKrunkle Because that's the logical conclusion of critical race theory? There is an oppressor race and an oppressed race, and everything created by the oppressor race is inherently evil and should be rejected?
@@sholiss3228 Okay that is helpful to know. I still think you can make objective assumptions about the social world. For example, every single society has created laws and every society that abandons their religion immediately either dies or is absorbed by another society.
Hey Ryan, many thanks for you work. Since a few months I am searching RUclips in order to unterstand the topics you are working on. Your videos are the best of all: not too long, references are given, not emotions only facts and citations. I am so happy. Thanks Martin
Western politicians and intellectuals are like: if there is no problem in the society then create one.
But there is problems in society...it's pretty clear
@@rickiex I mostly disagree with R MEDHI, and mostly agree with you. There is a problem, and it wasnt created, it is race and mainly with whites relating to blacks, speaking from experience. Where i agree with R MED, in a sense, is it shouldn't be handled with critical race theory or with white supremacy. Both will create a catastrophe. So, since problem is already supposedly handled, therefore there is no problem needs fixing. Unless, like R MED said, the mostly white politicians and intellectuals, think problem can not handled with current measures.
The civil rights legal reforms, the present method, i agree with. The problem i have with civil right movement, not the legal reforms it caused, is its lead that racism is only an intellectual delusion and under no condition, race should matter. I disagree with that. It should matter when it should, and its not, only, an intellectual delusion. It is instinctual and, in the past it was added on by ideologies proven false, or, the racism was instilled in others when it was unnecessary or wrong.
Legal reforms, race must not matter, i agree with. In job, law, governance and marriage. I also agree it must not matter in partner or friend selection. Forcefully, when necessary, i mean, by social pressure, not law, violence, loosing work, or denied any legal opportunity and expression. But at the present only.
The civil rights method, is not a pro-minority method. It is a pro-native method. I agree with crit race theory on that. However, it is peaceful, with maximum fairness, and at present i feel it is more appropriate. It is pro-native, so unwanted minorities numbers supposed to decrease eventually, but not forcefully in any way, to a comfortable, and a balanced level for all.
My opinions.
@@Capeau That is true too.
Its funny i remember reading somewhere that the decline of Ming Empire was a period of a lot of unemployed & angry intellectuals
James Lindsay does a great job explaining CRT.
"A Summary of Neo-Marxism"
*youtu(DOT)be/hkMiV-F4rKY*
"The Truth About Critical Methods"
*youtu(DOT)be/rSHL-rSMIro*
"Why Critical Race Theory Is Un-American"
*youtu(DOT)be/iKKdpUvmtg4*
Clearly RUclips/ Google doesn't want the public to know what James Lindsay has to say on CRT as they censor/ delete my comment when I add his video links.
This video is what real teaching should look like, but that’s just my opinion. I believe Teaching lays out the information, and lets you decide for yourself what you learned…with no inflections as to what the teacher thinks you should believe,. Lay out the facts, lay out the evidence, let you take in the information, make your own conclusions, decide how you want to interpret it, go out in the world and try out the way you understood it in your own way, and decide if it’s working for you or not.
If it isn’t, you still have all of the information the teacher laid out, maybe your personal interpretation needs adjusting, so try again because you have the information (thanks to a great teacher) you just personally interpreted it in a way that didn’t work in your reality.
yeah but according to this, CRT doesn't want to be objective, because that's white supremacy. they want to be subjective, and just tell you what they feel. and where you should stand on things.
so yeah, I agree with you.
Same with journalism
@@GM-qi8pw I think they are projecting there own racism on others
@@Nephritebeing 100%
This crap is fine to teach in theory. But when acted out it has terrible outcomes. Also should never be taught in public schools to children, who have no grasp of theoretic claimst
how does one measure racial inequalities without using objective methods (e.g., stats)?
It's all about the feels and talking "your truth".
Personal anecdotes of the oppressed
@@louiscyfear878 by definition, not an objective method
You must be white
@@Lester-Paul actually, no....I just like clear thinking....guess that is not to your taste :) nia:wen :)
I am deeply impressed with this video Ryan and have to acknowledge the excellent way you have explained a topic about which, until a few months ago, I had never even heard of. It raises so many issues and questions that it is pointless expressing how I feel about the whole topic but it clearly isn't something to be dismissed lightly and I for one will try to learn more. Again, thank you!
If we're too racially biased for colorblindness to work, how are we not too racially biased for reverse racism to work?
If we're too intrinsically negative to be neutral, how are we not too negative to be positive?
Are you black?
The Third Reich did this in their school’s “Eugenics” class. Kind of a scary thought.
How? I understood that CRT wants racial consciousness, but "third reich" wanted exactly the opposite.
@@rain-er6537 Dude, the third reich was all about race. Meaning they put race over everything. So they were very very aware of race. duh
@@berserk9085 crt wants racial diversity and hates white majority, how is that somwthing reich wanted?
@@DrumL3000 that's what I meant simpleton.
@@rain-er6537 they both have the same obsession with race.
The short version is basically: Judge people by their skin and ancestry, and not by their own character and choices.
It's a book for a new, sexy version of racism.
WHAT AN AGE WE LIVE IN!
No it means racism has played a roll in the system of America
@@kimmmimemwest1895 and its next step is to then be racist to fight past racism. Genius.
@@EpicAlcatraz99 no the next step is to acknowledge the past mistake...
@@kimmmimemwest1895 what does acknowledging the past do? If you live today then you share no responsibility for what happened hundreds of years ago. A man cant be tried in court for a murder his great grandfather performed. It keeps people in a looking backwards mentality instead of looking forward. Telling someone they CANT succeed bc of their skin color is a good way to ruin someone.
@@EpicAlcatraz99 to make sure it don't happen again.. pretty simple...
Thank you for creating and posting this video. I’ve heard the term bandied about by politicians (mostly MAGA Republicans) but until now didn’t know the philosophy or ideas behind CRT.
At first I was thinking, “sounds reasonable”, but then it seems CRT went off the rails as theory proponents attacked logic and rational thinking in favor of grievance politics.
Pretty much my thought process too and when they discard neutrality and objectivity they undermine their own position because they are basically just left with their feelings. This may sound like an unfair characterization but if you listen to the critical race theorists themselves you will hear about the emphasis they put on "lived experience" and since we aren't allowed to be objective we have to accept their lived experience as whatever they say it is.
Jeez.. so Marxism leading to race-nationalism aimed predominantly at the youth in order to create something akin to a new world order?
Where have we heard that before?
It's called cultural Marxism.
Whew 😬 this is why homeschooling is important.
That's not the answer. Not everyone can home school and not all teachers are teaching this stuff.
Absolutely
@@BethBurns68 you make it work. It takes an army of people but you make it work. It is worth it for our children.
Sure, so your parents can fill your head with their ignorance, lies and misinformation. Great idea!
Parents aren't always the best teachers.
"If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Looking for racism where there is no obvious one, it's more likely to lead to Pareidolia instead of subjective evaluation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
Pareidolia? Stop using white man words, you racist.
CRT actually stands for creating racism thoroughly!
James Lindsay also does great in depth videos.
"A Summary of Neo-Marxism"
*youtu(DOT)be/hkMiV-F4rKY*
"The Truth About Critical Methods"
*youtu(DOT)be/rSHL-rSMIro*
"Why Critical Race Theory Is Un-American"
*youtu(DOT)be/iKKdpUvmtg4*
Clearly RUclips/ Google doesn't want the public to know what James Lindsay has to say on CRT as they censor/ delete my comment when I add his video links.
@Yokai 369 I really think they are. No joke. My phone has been making random beeping sounds that I have never heard before.
cathode ray tube🥶
Racism has already been thoroughly created. To think otherwise is tone deaf at best.
U.S. History teaches us this. Or did you forget about Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws, the destruction of every Black city in America (over 160), and the war on drugs...which is admittedly a war on Black people and anti-war activists. That was an admission from the Nixon administration.
But you feel free to keep on thinking that teaching about our racist history is causing racism.
@@williesawyerii73 I didn't forget but this "education" promotes victimhood with racist ideologies and it is stuck on past history failing to recognize progress and what can we do to move forward today
I think it’s important to understand this context: As I understand it, proponents of CRT see politics as touching every part of life. In that way, everything is political. So framing this as “advancing their political goals” rather than “advancing anti-racist social policy” is a little icky. :/
Ahhh yes… race decided questions in our regular day lives. Doesn’t CRT ring a bell, don’t call it critical race theory, just call it racism
I cannot agree more
James Lindsay does a great job explaining CRT.
"A Summary of Neo-Marxism"
*youtu(DOT)be/hkMiV-F4rKY*
"The Truth About Critical Methods"
*youtu(DOT)be/rSHL-rSMIro*
"Why Critical Race Theory Is Un-American"
*youtu(DOT)be/iKKdpUvmtg4*
Clearly RUclips/ Google doesn't want the public to know what James Lindsay has to say on CRT as they censor/ delete my comment when I add his video links.
Neo-racism
One could say it's a form of black privilege that they can get away with this shit... jk I don't talk like that because I'm not a crt racist.
Or victimization.... A headache.... Digging for shit
"CRT is a standard bolshevik tactic. It's the same tactic they used the first time in Russia. The topic is slightly different but the tactic is identical. It isn't about race or anything meaningful. It's about creating division between people and causing chaos. So the dear communists can save us all. That's what it is."
Bad take. CRT is a lazy co-opt of Marxist thought in that instead of placing all historical materialistic analysis on the class struggle, it places everyone on a super American-centric obsession with race. Marxists rebuke CRT, American "leftists" who are in fact just radical liberals embrace CRT because they want to still be able to have brunch and fancy cars while saying they're helping by being "anti-racist". They'd be happy for there to be a large number of minorities on Wall Street as proof of wokeness and not worry about millions of poor white people. Marxists with any ounce of principle in their blood would and do rebuke such a notion and see CRT as the enemy of the working masses as Marxism seeks to Unite the Workers of the World. It's literally the catch phrase for socialism. CRT seeks to divide the masses over the color of their skin, no different than racists of yesteryear
@@charleskummerer Like Malcolm X stated.."beware the friendly Democrats"
@@MrPatrick1414 Dems love to lie lie lie and pretend they care about the workers
SORRY BUT ITS ESSENTIAL TO END RACISM IN THE US.
@@carolmcclendon2904 It will never end...its too useful a tool for the politician to distract and pit the masses against each other
What you say at 19:17 is so utterly profound. And also very good video. It's rare to see a unbiased presentation of something with source material to back it up and remain impartial.
It is offensive to say you do not see color! Say you don't base decisions on color, but to not see it is to deny it, and if you need to do that, you fear or loathe it.
This is a great, clear and honest video. Thank you so much! I want to share some of my thoughts on CRT.
Thing that annoys me the most in this theory is this denialism of almost any empathy towards people from another racial background. There are some things that may be useful in this CRT perpsective (to be honest, very few in my opinion), but the idea that strikes me the most is this concept of "black experience", "black voices", "white experience", "whiteness" etc. Now, I know that I can't fully understand other people's emotions or experience, but I can use empathy to get as close to it as I can. I'm not a woman, but I can uderstand some things that are specific to women and I can feel sympathy, solidarity, even if I am a man. The same with race, orientation etc. We have empathy and reason - very strong and great tools to interact with others.
CRT is removing the possibility of understanding one another on this basic, human level. As a white person I can never understant black experience, I can only listen and agree, never question.
This idea is really damaging in my opinion it's like we're almost different species that cannot understand each other. And I believe that most people share the same common needs. We want to be loved, feel safe, have a meaning in our lives etc. Even if we are totally different, have different experience, history, knowledge, whatever, there's still so many that we have in common. When you remove this, by suggesting that we can't possibly understand one another, can't feel empathy, it's a recipe for disaster. And at the end of this road you have ideas like: science and logic are white tools of opression and stories, rituals, magic or something are other ways of knowing that belongs to people of colour. It's absolutely racist and stereotyping, but somehow it's called anti-racist now. And yes, these are the fruits of the CRT, even though we hear everytime that it's not a real CRT, no one is saying this etc... I mean, most people are not that stupid. These are natural conclusions of CRT. And we should be able to say it out loud.
I do agree but with your peoples track record, constant denial on top of it being someone that looks like me who dies when you are in a position of authority. Not individually but as a whole. Attacked our industries and now tell us we are lazy. I think CRT would help poc to not fall in the traps and to not expect equal treatment when it comes to interactions with your people. We are different but you won't back away enough to see it. What are you afraid of?
@CharlieWalter the video talked about deconstruction of inherently racist systems not deconstructing relationship between individuals. African Americans will tell you the worst thing to happen to us since slavery was government forced integration. We had our communities and economic system, but the 🇺🇸 took it from us and for what...the majority of our communities are underfunded and undereducated. When we were left alone our contributions to science, medicine, entertainment, and manufacturing built not only this country but shaped the world. I guess the powers that be understood this and kept us within this White power construct.
I think it's helpful to view CRT like rational people view religion. Harmful if taken to it's extremes, but helpful in giving some form of insight into aspects of the human condition. It's like how Abrahamic religions view the problem of evil as sin, CRT views the problem of inequality in society as racism. Sin is not only viewed as specific actions but as part of the fabric of human nature. Racism is viewed not only as specific actions but also as an element of our society. It's the age old "Problem, here's a solution" setup. Balance is the key, getting too deep into CRT will inevitably produce blindspots in your thinking but when looked at as just one option of analysis in a wide intellectual toolkit, it can be helpful.
Thank you for enlightening me on CRT. I wasn’t sure if it was BS. Now I have confirmation.
He didn't enlighten you. He snowed you.
Great comment. CRT is another BS like BLM, rcsm and on and on
Is that all it takes to make up your mind about something? Poor guy.
@@raghavsharma8642 Yeah you're wrong
@@canilernproto3018 cool bro. Thanks for the explanation
Critical Race theory in America is only critical of one race. That should tell you something. It identifies people as being a skin color, instead of being, kind, caring, loving, rude, or whatever they are being. We should all hope we are being something more important than a skin color.
So it's a color of skin judgment not a content of character judgment. Interesting
Oh but friend, it’s only critical of one race? But was it not only one race that enslaved black people for 400+ years? How can you teach American history minus the talk of race?
@@mapalotutula2015 I agree there is no way to teach history without race .
@Bob Thomas Firstly, I have been nothing but polite on this thread and you on the other hand have come off totally hostile towards me like you know me.
But it’s alright. So let’s have a conversation, firstly I’m not mad about what happened 400 years ago. I’m mad about the lasting effects it’s had that continues to plague the black community till this day. You know, a common misconception most people have is that when they see the “400” number is it happened a long time ago and we should forget. But see when you forget something you don’t learn from it. That’s why this needs to be taught, you learn about the past so that you won’t make the same mistakes again. But if History isn’t going to be told in its entirety including the real reasons people did what they did in the past, then you’re not teaching the truth. It’s all fallacy. America was built on racism, no matter how guilty this makes one feel it’s the truth and it’s our generations job to not repeat the same mistake.
And just to clarify, Morgan Freeman was wrong. There is no problem on earth that ever got solved by ignoring it. People like Harriet Tubman and Fredrick Douglas struggled throughout their entire life to fight racism and people like Martin Luther made it so that most black people have the civil right they do.
Imagine if they just stopped talking about their oppression, would the rest of us have been in the position we are now?
You know the real way to stop Racism? Teach about it and not pretend like it doesn’t exist.
@Bob Thomas I feel atleast now we are getting somewhere with this conversation rather than we did before, so because of that I commend you.
However I feel like we do live in a two different realities. Racism hasn’t gone anywhere at all. Just because people aren’t being whipped and used for free labor doesn’t mean that these things have ended. The only difference is, it’s not so obvious anymore. The racism isn’t subtle however because it comes of as discrimination. Let’s take Policing for instance, black people are 3 times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police as compared to white people. Why is that? I mean we all are equal aren’t we? If you don’t see color anymore then why is that a truth?
Here’s another one, why is it when you apply for a job or a bank loan you have to fill in your race? If this is a problem that doesn’t exist anymore why does that matter?
Racism hasn’t gone anywhere, and in as much progress as we’ve made we can’t afford to pretend like things are alright when they aren’t. In April 3 straight days in a row, they were different cases of police brutality and all the people murdered were people of color.
It’s very difficult to agree with the statement claiming this problem has changed, it hasn’t at all. I know people that have been pulled over at gunpoint by the police just because he was driving a nice car. You’d think in a 1st world country that wouldn’t be a thing right?
And to your point on white supremacy I’m sorry but I’ll have to agree with Biden on that one. Do you remember what life was like before covid? There was a school shooting nearly every week. A lot of those school shooters had white supremacist manifestos too. One of them actually shot up a black church. In recent years they have been more school shootings than they have been international terrorist attacks.
See my point here is this, the only way we can learn is through being taught. And the only way we can teach is if we teach the truth. If we teach children only the good parts we are preparing them for a future of denial. A child’s mind is easier to change than an adults’. If someone grew up thinking Racism doesn’t exist, they won’t believe it in their old age, but if you teach them that this is a problem that we face as a society and we need to overcome it together, we will definitely make strides forward.
The problem will not fix itself, we have to do that. And it starts with teaching our kids the truth.
Took me FOREVER to find a video that didn’t have their bias through the explanation. This is gold. I need to understand this theory as I’m in the teaching profession. I don’t know how I feel about it because I didn’t fully understand it. This helps so much. Thank you
CRT at its core is about bringing superior people down to the level of lesser people. Basic communism 101. "And the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, ax and saw."
Every explanation has bias, including this one. That makes this guy’s videos dangerous. They masquerade as lacking bias even though they are biased. I don’t trust people who lie to themselves, and this guy is lying to you and others about his biases.
@@icedirt9658 look I didn’t say HE wasn’t bias…we all are to our own opinion on things. I said his explanation of what CRT is about was not bias. He also had sources. So you don’t need to trust him necessarily but if you need some information (like I did) this was a good video where clear bias wasn’t through the video as well as extreme emotion because of the topic. It was refreshing
@@icedirt9658 youre smart and intuitive enough to know all of that but still need someone to tell you what crt is?
I hear you, but this guy definitely has a bias. Everybody does and it's essentially impossible to escape. Don't mistake fair, for impartial or unbiased. A good video, no doubt, but certainly his opinion is heard.
This video should have 350 million views. Every American should know the unvarnished facts about CRT so hey can decide. Outstanding presentation, Thank you very much
This video doesn't nearly go deep enough . He's skimming the surface.
@@itsmorphed6416 It’s good for what it is: a start. The problem is that simplistic thinkers believe it’s the final word. They don’t want to engage with the material.
I agree it doesn’t go deep, but I didn’t expect it would. I’m disappointed that there are a few gaps that should have been explained better and more directly (for example, what is whiteness, exactly?) Ryan touches on the question without really engaging it directly, imho.
Scott (the OP) calls Ryan’s gloss “the unvarnished facts”. I don’t think Ryan would claim that. It’s Ryan’s best approximation, his current understanding. But Scott thinks a 20 minute video is the final word. Something tells me Scott is seeing what he wants to see and hearing what he wants to hear. He wasn’t intellectually curious to begin with.
It’s well said but this so dumb man when was objectivity and neutrality racist💀
@@whosdatboy122 you should always double check the things you write to make sure it makes sense
@@whosdatboy122 Nobody said it's racist. Please listen to that section again. As a hint, it was described as white. Now think about CRT's most basic beliefs about race.
They seem to be saying that racism is everywhere and in every interaction but that they somehow know how to stop racism with more racism.
Racism will always be present but we can minimalize it when we stop focusing on race.
We tried that approach. it does not work! CRT is an attempt to look at race 60 years after the civil rights act and see what has worked and where that traditional approach has failed
@@Jim-c6e Can you provide any information regarding the failed approach that you are talking about?
I assume CRT comes from the heart and is sincere in its goal but I feel like they've gone overboard and I want to understand this POV more.
@@nealteitelbaum8660 I cant help you understand anything about CRT other than the fact that a lot of white men are scared shit of it and want it banned before it is even taught.
@@jenniferbrown3782 Darling, this society was terminally divided in 1776! Nothing I say can make matters worse than they already are and have been for hundreds of years! The question is, how do we move forward from here?
@@Jim-c6e I didn't ask you about CRT. I can find info on that myself. You responded to my comment "Racism will always be present but we can minimalize it when we stop focusing on race" by stating "We tried that approach. it does not work!".
I would like info on what was tried, exactly, and how it didn't work. Obviously you have data or sources for that claim, no?
I’ve been aware of CRT among numerous “Critical Theory” movements / ideologies for 20 or so years (late 1990’s) after stumbling into the research of “Affirmative Action” & it’s origins took me down one hell of a rabbit hole. It has been absolutely WILD to witness the ideology spill out into the real world, so to speak, over the last decade especially gaining critical mass over the last few years, it’s a sort of hyper-Marxian Leftist religious awakening. Sometimes I now think this is what it’s like, in a way, to live through a modern day version of ~1930’s Central Europe.
Me too!
What were reading back then? I was following al lot of this from Lew Rockwell’s website. Never thought it would actually grow into what it has.
Wonder what else happened in 1930s central Europe?
CRT is to Marxism what the movie Gladiator is to Roman history, if you know what I mean.
Marxism may have been the inspiration, but it's been so "burgerized" that you can't call it Marxism anymore. Also, there's a large portion of the left that sees the woke religion for what it is (especially the Matxist left).
@@souljastation5463 That's the thing. It's hard to pin down what "pure" Marxism is. There are Marxists who believe that the only thing that is pure Marxism is dialectical materialism. Pure Marxism was abandoned in the early 1900s and replaced with various Vanguard Marxisms, like Leninism. Marxism itself has been subjected to Marxist critique, applying the dialectical method to resolve the contradictions. World War I was a large part of what the catalyst was for these updates to Marxism.
I've spent the last several years deliberately avoiding almost any media consumption of controversial contemporary topics. With the exception of a few obscure professors (e.g., Great Lectures), it consists of cheerleading, loaded words, projection of personal values, unwanted assumptions, or some other insulting delivery.
I have just finished consuming several of your videos. The topics are not only interesting, but for pretty much everyone, they are impossible to discuss dispassionately. But somehow not for you.
It is as though you are wise enough to know how your personal ideology might unexpectedly seep out to those sensitive to it, and crafty enough to completely avoid it. It seems to defy your youth. I have no idea of your political ideology, and I couldn't be more impressed!
Please keep up the good work. Your intellectual curiosity, and your ability to respectfully share your journey with others will, I suspect, serve you well in your long future.
Thanks.
Hitler would be very proud of CRT
Shows that you know nothing about Hitler. So shut up until you have something to say, that does not include swastikas.
Fascists love dividing the masses.
@@alaricrex7395 well I’m Jewish soooo…
@@alaricrex7395 Such aggressiveness in that gaslighting.
@@Brandwein42 Gaslighting, huh? .... lol don't worry, they already removed my comment, the communist bastards.
CRT literally teaches racism and to judge based on race. I've seen "lessons" on CRT, and it literally stated in these lessons that "Society is based in whiteness", and that all white people are born racists by default, even on a subconscious level, and will even unintentionally act to keep black people down whether they realize it or not, and so all black people need to be granted special treatment because they'll, by default, never be able to make it by on their own since society works against them, and if any black people disagree with this idea or want to make it by on their own without special treatment or if they want to be treated equally that it's because they've been brainwashed by white supremacists into thinking that way as a way to keep them down. This is not an exaggeration, this was directly stated in the so-called lessons. It's insulting to all races, and literally teaches racism.
What a bunch of bullshit.
You and your fake lesson are BS, CRT does not even address individual anything its focus is institutions.
It's sad really that people buying into this form of racism without realizing that they are supporting racism.
It’s Racist by its own definition.
@@stuartkeithguitars4251 how do you feel about the analysis of this video
That’s what I don’t get either. How or why are schools not realizing that this is simply a different form of racism? Are they playing dumb? I honestly am confused by this
@@billsimms2511 marxists know exactly what they are doing. It's up to the parents to stop them.
@@chuckp413 not only that it claims it can solve all racism and inequity by using racism as a policy tool.
So, watching this, I was getting increasingly uneasy and skeptical about whether Ryan was presenting his sources fairly. There seemed to be a lot of instances where he says one thing, while the highlighted text and the text around it says another or where he injects his own small twists or value judgments so as to present CRT as unreasonable, while trying to do it in a way that on the surface seems "objective, neutral and balanced".
It seems that he obviously goes to great lengths to read and present these things, so I'm not sure that his skew is intentional. But I think that he might ought to take a page from the books he were reading, so to speak, and get a little more authentic in his presentation by making it more explicit what he thinks is right and wrong and what he thinks about the theories he is presenting - instead of letting it seep in sideways.
Below are my scribbled notes while watching.
1:38: Color-blindness, Reagan, 1981, hostile to civil rights policies of the previous two decades. Ryan, on color-blindness: "They think that in reality, we are too racially biased for it to work." While the highlighted quote says: "...would make no sense at all in a society in which identifiable groups had actually been treated differently historically and in which the effects of this difference in treatment continued into the present."
2:25: Ryan, on racial integration: "is basically having a melting pot-vision of America where people with different racial backgrounds come together and share values, political power and society itself. Which also implies that people try to downplay their racial differences in favor of trying to see the common humanity in each other." While the text, after the highlighted part, says: "This concept of integration was based on an appreciation of American society's culturally pluralistic nature. However, things have gone off track. [...] "the ideal of assimilation replaced the hard-fought-for integration as pluralism" which stemmed from a respect for diff[erence? ...]".
6:53: Ryan: "So critical race theorists looked at academia and they looked at the traditional ways that they felt academics are supposed to behave. And they boiled it down to a few values that academics are supposed to have. And those values were to be "objective, neutral and balanced." " While the text says: "As a reflection of authenticity, critical race scholarship also rejects the traditional dictates that implore one to write and study as a detached observer whose work is purportedly objective, neutral and balanced. In the classic sense of "professing," critical race scholars advocate and defend positions."
Ryan about Horkheimer, at 8:50: "According to him, critical theorists work in academia with their political goals in mind. So they subjectively slant their academic findings to accomodate their political goals." (This last part sounds like Ryan's unfair interpretation. Meanwhile, the highlighted text shown has an unobvious relation to what Ryan is attributing to Horkheimer.)
At 10:41, Ryan says: "They don't objectively look at all the possible explanations for why these racial disparities might be happening." This seems to give the game away. What are these possible explanations, Ryan?
At 10:46, Ryan says: "There's a third source, too, and I don't know if I would call it evidence, but it's a factor that critical race theorists bring into their analysis and that's historical context. But again, this is done in a subjective, political way, which means that they usually invoke a history of oppression to say that something is more racist than it might otherwise appear. So it could be a law or it could be a behavior, an attitude - or in this case saying,, "because of a history of oppression, we can presume that these unwanted differences come from racism"." So, in my humble subjective opinion, historical context is pretty weighty evidence. Scoffing at historical context as evidence seems absurd, since it so directly shows how many of the disparities between racial groups came about.
...I stopped with the incessant notes at this point, since I was at this point convinced of Ryan's bias.
CRT was covered by "Some More News".
It's pretty scary that these theorists go so hard on deconstruction without having any real idea of what they want to do after. Kinda like a bull in a china shop. And from what little they communicate as their vision of the future, it sounds almost like a hunger games situation but with all the districts being race-based. I am not a fan.
That’s always my biggest question .. they talk about creating a world without oppression but what does that even look like? I do not trust theorists that do not believe in objective truth ..
Why would anyone trust these theorists? What have they actually created to show us to give us faith in their ability?
@@billsimms2511 Sounds like what Thomas Sowell calls "the vision of the anointed". People who believe themselves to be far more enlightened than everyone else. They have all sorts of theories and ideas that they believe must be implemented on the rest of society but they have no forethought and never have to be the ones to bear the consequences of their decisions.
Hi. 'The system' is a global problem. The colonists exported it whereever they went, which is everywhere lol. In South Africa we say we want to decolonize things. You guys are saying deconstruct. Same thing.
@@billsimms2511 do u believe in science? It's also alot theory 🤭
So is economics. Terrible theory🙄
I was shocked when I heard about this. We also have the same problem. Go figure, same system 🤷♀️ but your fancy lawyers are using fancy words. We use simple words to describe this in SA😂
@@user-vd2jk7dl3p I'm sure you could debate this?? Lord knows economic theory needs some debating
I swear, any sane person listening to this will agree CRT is toxic.
Yeah.. honestly.
CNN would disagree with you
Wow, I didn't think I'd come away from this video intensely disliking the notion of critical race theory. Usually when something controversial like this is explained it's revealed to be pretty balanced and nuance, but this is a theory that actively rejects the notion of being balanced and nuanced. It's just plain racist.
How so??
@@supermaple1919 Mainly the lack of any attempt at objectivity and the specific racial focus rather than general racial focus. Provided it is as it is presented in this video and not misrepresented. But even so, some of those direct quotes don't paint it in a good light.
@@Jotari thank you very much for your response I am processing your response or your reply and give me a few or sometime and I will respond to you the best way I can even if you may not agree with what I'm saying that doesn't mean I'm trying to be confrontational and if you agree... BINGO!!! BE WELL. fffflllloooooooo 😎
@@supermaple1919 It's been two months since I actually watched the video, so if I don't respond because I don't feel like watching the video again than take that as it is. I am a man of many facets, and much like most, moderate laziness is in abundance.
Interesting takeaway, I feel that the aversion might just be the view of objectivity and race as it relates to CRT. I'm not sure if I'm making sense, so to expand, you missed that through CRT *pure* objectivity without bias is impossible. And to truly break down racism and other forms of oppression, one must look through the eyes of the oppressed. The viewing of our practices as an oppressed person, through things like anecdotes and statistics, is an important aspect when deconstructing racism. Crucial to the idea of CRT is nuance when examining the power structures of our society and how race is related.
Ryan,
This is an impressive and excellent presentation of a dense topic. Using well chosen words and a calm collected style you are able to cover so much in just a few minutes.
I love how scientific you go about making your videos, quoting passages, backing up everything you say and keeping fanatic ideologies out of your argumentation. And, as many have complained already, it's super hard to find an unbiased and concrete explanation of CRT.
Ryan Chapman actually comes off as extremely biased and a little racist in this video. This was a deeply misleading and deceptive "explanation" of CRT.
He used primary sources, but he misquoted them or misinterpreted them throughout the video.
His technique is to take a passage, then highlight a sentence fragment, then misinterpret it as saying something different than what it actually says. Worse still, this doesn't seem to be due to stupidity, but rather to willful malice.
Here are 2 obvious examples:
1) 7:27 Chapman claims that critical race theorists reject "objectivity, balance and detached neutrality" in academia as "white values." However, this is *not* what the highlighted text states.
The highlighted text does not refer to "objectivity", but rather to _"purported_ objectivity". Which means when one attempts to convey they _appearance_ of objectivity without actually being so. That's a *big* difference.
CRT theorists are saying that white academics have historically laundered their bias through a thin veneer of false objectivity. They reject trying to *pretend* you are unbiased when you are actually very biased.
Thus, they recommend that it's better you don't try to pretend to be unbiased, and instead, announce your biases ahead of time so that the readers of your work can be cautious.
Chapman totally misrepresented this point by selectively highlighting only a fragment of the sentence and not the whole thing.
2) 2:07 Chapman claims that CRT rejects "color blindness" because CRT theorists believe that we're too racist to be color blind, but again, that's not what the quoted text says.
The text doesn't say that we're too racist to do it. It says that the result of _previous_ years of racism have created major inequities that color blind policies tend to reinforce.
Chapman totally lied about what the text. He said one thing while the text onscreen said something entirely different.
The text also explains that because color blind policymaking tends to reinforce previous inequities it can actually be exploited by contemporary racist people to make the problem worse. They illustrate this by pointing out that the Reagan campaign embraced color blind policymaking as a way to beat back the civil rights movement, rather than as a way to support it. Chapman of course, ignores this.
@@yessum15 I believe you're a bit overreacting here. Yes, leaving out the "purported" does make it sound like CRTists saying objectivity is bad "because it's white" instead of "we can't be objective". However that doesn't change the conclusion that academia should be openly subjective and political.
In your next point the text says that the differential treatment continues into the present. Wouldn't that mean that we're still racially biased today as Ryan interprets it? Wouldn't that even play into the concept of systemic racism?
I tried to go through the video again and besides your two objections I found one more questionable interpretation on 18:24 where he adds "at least if you're not white" even thought it isn't mentioned in the shown text. I'm sure you can pull out more examples because I didn't read the originals and don't have the full picture.
@@leirex_1 1) *_" the text says that the differential treatment continues into the present."_*
NO. You are misreading the text. The sentence does not say "this differential treatment continues into the present". It says "the *effect* of this differential treatment continues into the present". In other words, color-blind policymaking would make no sense in a society where *historical* racism caused problems whose effects persist into today.
This is very different from saying that the historical racism itself persists.
That's the entire point of this section of the text and your interpretation is literally the opposite of what it says. The entire idea is that even with the best intentions, _even in a society where no one is racist,_ colorblind policies would typically work to reinforce historical racism.
2) *_"that doesn't change the conclusion that academia should be openly subjective and political."_*
The text doesn't say that at all. It literally doesn't say that or anything close to that anywhere. The text says 3 things:
a) It is impossible to be objective often it is more harmful to pretend to be objective than to admit your own biases.
b) The default bias in most historical academic scholarship produced in the US has been slanted towards reinforcing white biases.
c) *If you are doing critical race theory* you should not pretend to attack this white bias from a neutral position, but admit and embrace the fact that your position is also biased.
That last one is pretty important. It's not prescribing this to all academia. Or telling you that you should always do this. It's saying that _when you're doing CRT_ you should act like this.
This actually has less to do with Critical Race Theory itself, and more to do with Critical Theory in general. Critical Theory in general is a field of study that requires us to explore the hidden biases and assumptions in our traditional beliefs. So if you do it without being open about your own bias, you're doing it poorly. Critical Race Theory applies that same idea to race.
But that doesn't mean that ALL academia should be biased.
The goal of all academia is to arrive at real objective truth. When you're doing orthodox academic study, its ok to adopt the default "neutral objective voice", even if you know it's a lie. But when you do critical theory you have to reject this voice and speak from your own "authentic" and biased position.
Then, when you combine the two, you're able to get closer to the real truth. Because your own openly biased position may help you see the hidden biases in the supposedly "objective" work you usdd to look at as neutral.
This is not really a controversial position and it's a pretty old idea in academia. And the text excepts explain this reasonably well. It's very different from any of the crazy garbage this imbecile Chapman was saying.
3) *_"You're overreacting here"_*
No. You're underreacting. I simply chose a small representative sample. but lIterally _every single thing_ Chapman said about CRT in this video was wrong. You would literally be better off having heard nothing.
Most of the time, he interpreted the text to mean he opposite of what was written. He quoted sentence fragments out of context and read out loud something different than what was written.
And the *absolute worst part* is that he did it while pretending to present an unbiased, neutral view of the topic.
This is SO much worst than an open racist simply admitting that he hates colored people and attacking CRT for an hour. He is literally committing the very sin the text warns against. He is purposely lying and smearing the study of CRT as a result of his own prejudices and adopting a fake objective and neutral voice.
This is the worst kind of racist.
@Alan JYour statement includes no evidence. This is otherwise known as an emotional outburst.
Here's a solution: everyone who believes in Critical Race Theory should create their own nation state, and show us all how to implement their Theory.
Otherwise, they're just whiny little children.
Finally, a good fucking comment
Their own country.
CRT is not instrested in creating. it wants to infiltrat and take over whats alredy there from the inside. And its working :(
@@drakgrotta I actually think CRT is interested in destroying. Keep in mind: It is Tribal Doctrine.
@@karlostj4683 yes it is tribal in nature but dont you think they long for power? If you destroy you cant rule.
17:00 Orwell already came up with this idea , it,s called the thought police
So many things to say. I think it would benefit your audience to make another video describing the links between neo-Marxism and CRT. As a mixed race individual (half-white) I have been put in the unfortunate position of being both oppressor and oppressed. I believe the underlying assumption is that I drop my white identity in favor of my other in order to define myself through this system. And there are more and more people like me - mixed race and dealing with the implications that entails. I would suggest that we of mixed race experience yet even more/different problems than those of single race backgrounds, and CRT has not attempted to address this in a significant way.
I will be showing my hand a bit here by saying - how you can discuss this with a straight face is impressive. I think you did your due diligence by explaining that CRT has provided no substantial answer to the problem, just that the problem exists. But I think you down-played the focus that is made on black vs. white dynamics and that the latino, asian and other communities are just kind of along for the ride. A good amount of focus is made on slavery; other immigrant issues are not as strongly addressed.
And lastly - how dare you use a piece of music by black artists to bookend your video! racist . Ah, I love identity politics!
I'm seeing several contradicting ideas which can't possibly add to a solution. "Colorblindness" may not have worked on it's own (at least not enough) in the past, but that don't mean it shouldn't remain a core focus as to how we judge others. The only fair way to judge people is as individuals and the more we focus on separating people into "color" groups, the more apt we are to judge people in groups. Racism is born out of ignorance and fear (from our tribal limbic system), thus we should avoid terminology which will trigger the minds (limbic system) of ignorant people (racists), and cause more threat response (which instils fear) from their irrational (and over used) limbic system. Only our rational and logical cortex can deduce the differences between real threats and perceived threats.
We have to admit that we are still tribal beings and that it's human nature for people to distrust tribes different from their own. The differences are only superficial and insignificant, but most people aren't very logical, thus tend to form their beliefs, values and positions based on their biased and irrational emotions from their visceral limbic systems.
I think the focus should be on equal rules, laws, rights, opportunity....... for all "Americans". Racists already feel like they deserve more and will forever be triggered (thus dig in their heels and resist more vehemently) when people rally for more rights for minorities. If the focus is on general rights and equality it gives racists no ammo to attack with and they would be attacking their own rights if they resisted.
When I hear, "my people", I cringe, because that is what discriminating racists have (people just like them). My people are humans and I'm far to logical to separate people into different groups based on levels of melanin in their eyes, hair or skin. It's arbitrary, insignificant and ridiculous.
In America the "racists" are white because those people are the majority of skin color. In many other countries where white people are minorities, they would be discriminated against. Racism is a human problem and only rational and logical thinking skills can override our tribal biases from our irrational and visceral limbic systems. Racists are people with dominant influence from the limbic systems and weak influence from their logical cortexes. They are the way they are due to how their brains are wired. It's up to more capable (in logical thinking) people to help assuage their fears from false threats, rather than (typically) exacerbating their fears.
Societal problems come from the limbic system and any solutions can only come from the cortex. Limbic system vs limbic system has only caused arguments, chaos and wars. Problem solving requires logic and reason and emotions only get in the way by causing a mountain of resistance to the cause (equality for all people, just as it logically should be).
Thank you for this! It's been so hard to find an in depth explanation that wasn't clearly biased one way or another or made assumptions. This was a great explanation to help people form their own opinions. Ty!
I really wish more conversations about things like this were done as calmly any thoroughly as you presented these ideas
Genuinely, you're the first and only one I've seen who understood and knew of the connection between the North American CRT and the Frankfurt School, although you didn't name it that. Essentially Critical Theory is the method of the Frankfurt School, as the Scientific Method is the method of Science. To put it in a very brief way: The Frankfurt School (I'm referrencing Horkenheimer specifically, though this applies to the Frankfurt School in general) is against logical empiricism and sees itself as a direct competitor to science. Areo Magazine has an amazing article called "How Critical Theory came to be skeptical of Science". There is a lot of revisionism going on with regards to the Frankfurt School, which you managed to weed out. Great video, by far the best breakdown I have seen in the political sphere, not just online.
For me, you did a good job of explaining this theory. Thank you for using primary source materials in your explanation. I understand CRT better because of your presentation. (I am opposed to this theory but I am glad to understand the point of view.)
No, he didn’t. He did a good job of describing what Christopher Rufo wants you to believe it is. This is not CRT. At all.
@@seannymommy Explain it to us, then. Which parts of his explanation are incorrect? Which direct quotes need more context to more thoroughly be understood to the point that they will drastically alter the aforementioned message?
@@seannymommy How do you explain all those direct quotes then?
@@andrewjin6618 They are taken out of context; academic essays do not necessarily represent any kind of conclusion for a body of literature.
@@seannymommy Then how about you provide some quotes of your own?
Thank you for all the work you put into this video, both in researching CRT and the clear way you presented your findings. I feel like a have a much better grasp of what CRT actually is - at least the basics/broad strokes of what it is. I wouldn't be surprised if 99% of the people talking about CRT, from politicians to people at school board meetings, haven't a clue what CRT actually is; hopefully some of them will watch this video too.
@Russ Olson yeah, and aren't some of those books written by people who arent crt theorist?
@Russ Olson maybe he should also have talk with people like you? What field are you in?
@Russ Olson and I guess you are a genius compared to all of these people and we should listen to you.
@Russ Olson no but seriously, what have you actually proven about yourself being smarter?
@Russ Olson so you claim that you know better, and I as on what basis, what is the proof that you know better than anyone and everybody else is wrong?
I have heard about Critical Race Theory before, but never understood it until watching this video. I really enjoyed your video and how much it caused me to think about this subject. Personally, I'm shocked at how the Integration and Color-Blindness arguments were things I agreed with and how their analysis of academia and views to remove balanced objectivity and neutrality reversed my opinion instantly.
I can understand the views against integration; ever since I read a book that retold Cherokee oral stories from multiple storytellers, the preface which gave the accounts of the authors and editor also gave a sentiment that crushed my emotional views about being American. I couldn't find the book before typing this so I can't quote it like I wanted (but I found the book's title: Cherokee Stories of the Turtle Island Liars' Club), but the gist of what I remember from a small portion of the preface was that the Cherokee language is dying out in the writers' communities - the younger generation, while understanding the language, are not very capable of speaking it - and the reasoning is tied to modern development which has discouraged the older generation away from teaching their kids and grandkids from learning the language. Essentially, old folks are choosing to let a part of their cultural traditions, a facet of their racial identity, die out of feeling like it is outdated and being inadequate to modern American culture. This hurt me to read, because it goes against what I was taught to be proud in as an American: a country that is built from multiple cultures and identities from around the world that was founded on the principle of Freedom of Expression. The Indigenous cultures that lived here before than were trampled and segregated after centuries of Western expansion, but they are still American, and their culture is just as important as any other. Integration has tried to eliminate Native cultures in the past and accounts like this shows that it is seemingly succeeding, but modernization shouldn't come at the expense of the destruction of culture. They should evolve and adapt like any other living thing, so this account of willing death of one's own language is really discouraging and the thought this might have happened before and will happen again because of modern cultural development is lamentable. If the solutions that CRT were exploring could help remedy the death of minority cultures, then I'd be on board.
However, how can anyone say that the solution in fixing racial issue in academia would be the removal of objective, neutral, and balanced thinking? Although they came to this conclusion through research, this isn't a "whiteness" issue. Looking at things objectively is the closet to engaging with a subject without bias leading the conversation, it is one of the best ways to actually learn about concepts and histories you don't already know. To remove a neutral stance would be the same as yelling at a wall as there is no middle ground between you or your opponent, to not give balanced arguments is being willingly ignorant of potential factors that don't fit the narrative you want to promote. I guess it could help social discourse by having two people passionate debate their ideologies with their biases leading them while being viewed by an audience, but you can't make ground with the person you're debating when the opponent doesn't want to relent or budge; they and you will exit the conversation the same way you entered without really learning anything. Going into a conversation with an open mind should be the basis of modern education (or education in general) with how big and diverse the world truly is. I can't see Critical Race Theorists who reach the conclusion that these principles of learning are race specific, and to use them makes you less authentic if you aren't white, as that helpful to society as a whole. Having personal biases is fine and subjective perspectives are important for discussion, but academia shouldn't promote one method of learning as "racist" or that someone who engages this type of learning is less authentic.
Critical Race Theory seems to have some good goals and perspectives, but I can't agree that so many issues the Theorists choose to tackle are race specific or to fix actual race issues should coincide with removal of basic academic learning.
May suggest you watch a video about Hitler's Table Talk by Tik. He's a historian, and tackles the issue of objectivity vs subjectivity in the context of history, but it applies to the sciences too. We have been told basically what cannot be measured is implication cannot be true, but there's a problem with that. Consider the measurement of distance. If you look in a good unit converter, you will see various units of measurements that evolved, in different times, different places. For example, the cubit is no longer used. Indeed, there are only twi coyntries in the world that use what we would call Imperial Measurements. Between a cubit, a yard, or a metre, which one is objectively true, and what makes it so? With human beings, the idea that we can ever be 100% objective about anything is a myth. We make choices what to be "objective' about, yet those choices, are highly subjective, and contingent. We as observers of phenomena, are subject to those phenomena by affect, and effect. Therefore, no human activity can be divorced from being human. Scientidic truth is only "true" in the context of science, but there are other truths, experiential truths, that can only be described qualitatively. And that alone, brings more subjectivity into play. We have been taught in our culture that the norms of the physical sciences, are in some regard, the gold standard for "truth" in every discipline, and that is not completely true without abstraction of phenomena, which can be approximated by measurement in certain aspects of existence. That is the issue with the Social Sciences, which is the study of various dimensions of human experience, where the observer and the observed are one and the same - human. Critical Race Theory challenges the mental maps based on race, and asks us to critique those maps on the basis of what they direct us to do. Therefore, if the observer and obsetved are one and the same, objectivity and subjectivity are pretty much sharing the same space. CRT offers different maps, highlighting unobserved, or taken for granted freatures in the landscape, that those travelling through don't notice. Critical Race Theorists focus on the phenomena of race, and its various strands, come to different maps, because of the features they see as important, which should be included in the map they create. Choices again. Again, think of what is Theory? . Theory is used basically to do 2 things: to explain or describe, and to predict. Critical Race Theory challengies other theories. For example, it challengies "Color-blindness", as a theory, as a philosophy, and as a top-down solution offered by those benefitting from racist political, economic, and social hierarchies, which fail to be just, equitable, or restorative. That's the critique. But watch Tik's video then think about how can humans be objective? And is it even desireable, or even possible in every circumstance? Then think on the nature of truth.
It seems like just about everyone in this comment section is getting tripped up by the terms "objectivity" and "neutrality" in academia.
Neutrality when teaching the history a racial impression in America is not at all "neutral". With issues such as slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, police brutality, and enforced generational poverty through redlining are not debatably good or bad historical phenomenon within American history. Is quite clear that the normative judgment is and should always have been that these events and policies and practices fly in the face of basic standards of human Rights on a universal level.
So American academia tradition of teaching about the fact that say... Yes, slavery happened. Yes, post reconstruction Southern repression and systematic disenbranchisement of freedmen and women happened. Housing segregation and prevention to access to resources and opportunities for education and healthcare... Happened.
The thing is once you start to scratch beneath the surface of well this happened... Something that should be automatically expected of academics, we immediately run into how and why were these policies and practices implemented that were so clearly oppressive bigoted and designed to deny black Americans there basic human rights.
The answer to that is well racism you know? And if you're uncomfortable discussing racism as being a guiding principle of American society throughout much of its history that is directly responsible for these and many other aspects of racial oppression throughout our history, you start to be forced to abandon the ficade of neutrality.
Not teaching about the substance of American history and why racial oppression has occurred in our society since the beginning of our nation's founding is not a neutral or objective stance whatsoever as an academic scholar or as a common sense individual trying to make sense of the world.
Being 'neutral' simply means being quiet about confronting the uncomfortable truth of our nation's history instead of tiptoeing on eggshells around centuries of oppression that leaves Americans educated in the US public education system and many universities completely ignorant about extremely significant fundamental aspects of their history that is necessary for them to have a non distorted view of their own country's history.
@@BigHenFor Critical Race Theory, like all critical theories as outlined by Horkheimer, are not merely analytical tools but rather blueprints for activism. Critical theorists aren't at all concerned about understanding reality; rather they are hellbent on changing it into their own version. This is why it is essential, despite what Ryan says, to grasp the Marxist roots of this stuff, for Marx and all his fellow utopians are revolutionaries. They connive to overthrow current reality in order to implant a utopia in which they are the masters and everyone else is a peon. You have only to understand what has happened when Marxists have seized power anywhere to grasp the point.
I think the definition of "objective, neutral, and balanced" is very important here, and I'm fuzzy on what the CRT authors mean. If they reject merely the APPEARANCE of objectivity and neutrality, like refraining from putting forward your political opinions alongside your data, that's one thing. If they reject BEING objective or the PURSUIT of objective truth, that's another thing, and alarms me. I mean, if we're not all trying to get at the objective truth, what framework do we have at all for conversation and getting along? But when someone says "objectivity" with no further explanation, I tend to think of the 2nd concept rather than the 1st.
@@aaronpulley7528 I"m no expert but my understanding Is that they are critiquing the idea of positioning oneself as objective and neutral. It"s not only that we are biased sometimes, we are biased all the time in various ways. It"s not just consciously putting forward opinions, but what data you choose to collect, what topics get funding, how you interpret the data, etc. White culture In America is positioned as neutral, but It isn"t. It is as racialized as any other identity, but we are conditioned to not see it that way. Furthermore I think what they are suggesting is that there is no "objective truth." Remember these people were Initially legal scholars, not hard scientists, or even social scientists, so they are coming at the Idea of truth from a different angle. Anointing someone as objective (even ones self) is tantamount to saying, "I pick your story as the true one."
India had Critical caste theory since independence (75 years) wherein a poor upper caste kid woulld be demoted when he's fighting for a seat in university while a rich lower caste guy would be considered as victim and would be proped by authorities.
In 2023 there's hardly any castiesm and lower castes can change their religion to free themselves but still they stay as lower caste(get certificate made from govt) and stay hindu to get reservation.
In India a upper caste dude would always be considered as oppressor while a rich lower caste(say president) would be considered as victim in academia.
America has just got into critical race theory, we've been struggling with critical caste theory since independence due to demographics
I can see why people will be against this being taught in schools count me in on that 1
Lol, WHITES ,for the entire existence of America had no problem with teaching and enforcing white supremecy,but now whites object to an academic analysis of what they have ,and are doing!!!!! Talk about snow flakes lol
@@tesmith47 True and still black people are here and they can succeed if they work within that very system. The real challenge isn't race it's class. Three people have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population. Race is a diversion so we don't see the real problem. Politics and the almighty D or R label is a great tool for division ad well.
it's not really taught as is. there are some elements that may leak in, but the majority of teachers still strive for neutrality
i mean it’s a theory in the university level, it’s not getting taught in schools and i’ll be very surprised if it does
@@midassnap9028 in America it has always been a class war , but disguised by ruling class whites with race, but the damage is done to the masses of Black folks, to point at the Few who have done better is disingus, it is not because of the system, but in spite of it. The advanced capitalism no longer needs to have a totally exploited internal resource
This video told me all I really need to know about CRT. I definitely understand why people would be angry about this being taught in schools. It's an ideology that preempts any possibility of rebuttal by anyone who doesn't already agree with the ideology, which is the surest sign of a bad idea. It preaches the destruction of society without any plans or ideas for how to rebuild afterwards. That's not revolution, that's regressive in the most aggressive way possible. That's how you make life worse for everyone in America, including the people you're trying to help.
That isn't the issue at hand though. CRT is generally horrible. However, if you ask the average politician even what CRT actually is they'd have no fucking idea. They'll attach it to things they simply don't like in order to get an emotional reaction that has nothing to do with CRT at all. That's how you get these dumb ass laws where you need to describe "both sides" of something like the holocaust.
I doubt there are more than a small handful of K-12 schools around the nation where CRT is taught in any form. The CRT label has been unfairly applied to a broad range of teaching or books about the history of racism in our country.
You're in luck. It's not being taught in any public k-12 schools in the country.
I thought Ibrahim X Kendi said that race is a social construct invented by racists (in the 1400s), but that, at least until that social construct is destroyed, we have to be aware of race in order to catch these sorts of societal remnants. To me, that makes me feel that, for at least that author, the goal is eventual assimilation (not blending together so that our own histories seem the same but just that we are all the same society) once we’ve addressed the negative impacts of racism.