Racism Report

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

14 hours ago, Mr.Carrow said:

https://www.persuasion.community/p/who-decides-whats-racist?fbclid=IwAR0pw9959iVapA3RMjkc12bnB_uAb1ac-3wkSCQz8I1Ex1SCPfyxjjq0vXo

Mr.Carrow, I haven't got involved in this debate because I have no personal experience of racism, only some little experience of another ism, and have not read up on the subject. I didn't know until now what Critical Race Theory was, for example. Others know far more than me. But did you actually read this piece. It is intellectually dishonest in the extreme, as summed up by this paragraph:

Fourth, oppressed people around the world hold claims that directly contradict those of other oppressed people. Do we demand that Israelis accept a Palestinian denial of all Jewish connections to the land because Palestinians are an oppressed people? Do we demand that Palestinians accept an Israeli denial of all Palestinian connections to the land because Jews were victims in Europe and the Middle East? If you agree that one oppressed group has standing to define reality, it’s hard to argue that all oppressed people around the world don’t have similar standing to define their narratives of oppression, some of which conflict with each other.

The final sentence is hilariously tortured, but even if it was clearly written it would still be nonsense; The whole argument of the piece, as summed up in the sentences that precede it, is based on a falsity so absurd it doesn't need explaining.

[Barbe bleu 813]

On 21/04/2021 at 09:18, PurpleCanary said:

Mr.Carrow, I haven't got involved in this debate because I have no personal experience of racism, only some little experience of another ism, and have not read up on the subject. I didn't know until now what Critical Race Theory was, for example. Others know far more than me. But did you actually read this piece. It is intellectually dishonest in the extreme, as summed up by this paragraph:

Fourth, oppressed people around the world hold claims that directly contradict those of other oppressed people. Do we demand that Israelis accept a Palestinian denial of all Jewish connections to the land because Palestinians are an oppressed people? Do we demand that Palestinians accept an Israeli denial of all Palestinian connections to the land because Jews were victims in Europe and the Middle East? If you agree that one oppressed group has standing to define reality, it’s hard to argue that all oppressed people around the world don’t have similar standing to define their narratives of oppression, some of which conflict with each other.

The final sentence is hilariously tortured, but even if it was clearly written it would still be nonsense; The whole argument of the piece, as summed up in the sentences that precede it, is based on a falsity so absurd it doesn't need explaining.

 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Barbe bleu

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

20 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I am very anxious about stepping into the current debate but intellectual curiosity draws me in. No doubt I will regret it.

I am not sure I follow the criticism PC In this piece the author is asserting that there is a school of thought that only the oppressed should be able to state a view. The theory being that oppression reveals itself only in full to the oppressed and therefore someone of privilege simply cannot speak of a reality they have no perception, let alone understanding, of.

The last point, the point you quote above, is saying that if we follow this lead we must simultaneously deny a voice to one group as an oppressor on a 'local' scale and whilst granting them the very same voice as an oppressed group on a regional basis. Even if we can get ourselves free of this conundrum this 'standpoint approach', he continues,  is the antipathy of an approach that requires us to think it terms of compromise.

The conclusion, I think, being 'life is complicated and everyone has a part to play in it. Let everyone have their say and learn from one another'.

I am not offering a view of my own but unless it was hyperbole on your part (par for the course on the board) I wonder if I have missed something given your salvaging of the piece.

 

 

I thought I was savaging rather than salvaging!🤓 Of course one should listen to the oppressed if both sides are being oppressed, one against the other. But in the instance he cites there us no Palestinian oppression of Israeli Jews. The oppression is all one way. You only have to look at a series of maps of Israel and the Palestinian land from 1948 to the present day to see that delineated physically.

Yes, there is an ongoing conflict, because of that oppression, in which as it happens there is a vast disproportionality of death tolls, but in terms of daily life the oppression is all one way, and if the zealots increasingly in control in Israel have there way that oppression, including the taking of more land, will carry on. Not only is there not an equivalence of similar oppression by Palestinians on Israeli Jews, there is none.

The wider point is this. There may be societies where black people oppress white, but generally speaking it is the other way. In the US and the UK, for example, there is certainly no equivalence of racism, even if one could point to the odd incident.

What the writer does, in what they probably thought was a clever sleight of verbal hand, is to say that because there are oppressed people all over the world we should listen to all of them, which is of course true. But then he elides that into saying we should listen to both sides when these stories of oppression conflict in a particular case. But as said, in terms of Israel and the Palestinians and black versus white in western societies there is no equivalent oppression on both side.

This is hardly surprising. Oppression is usually carried out by the powerful majority against a powerless minority, so almost by definition you will not get equally valid views of oppression from both sides.

[Barbe bleu 813]

39 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

 

This is hardly surprising. Oppression is usually carried out by the powerful majority against a powerless minority, so almost by definition you will not get equally valid views of oppression from both sides.

I deliberately didn't use examples as a) I gets emotive b) opinions are largely pre formed c) it's too controversial.

On an entirely hypothetical basis I can see how one group can be local oppressors but in a wider context, the oppressed.   Perhaps they 'lash out' or oppressively control on a local basis because when confronted with the bigger picture they feel powerless and vulnerable?  Hell, we see this alpha'ing on this very forum. If we don't at least hear this voice how can we possibly know the causes, and if we don't know the cause do we really think we can solve the problem? Is it because we arrogantly assume we already know everything there is to know?

To your point above I think all views are potentially valid.  How valid depends what we want to know about, that is the point I am making above.

And thats before we begin to discuss whether if it more effective to try to legislate/ force our way to a goal than to convince and direct our way.

It's also before we discuss whether society really is formed of homologous masses that really do act as single entities.

I appreciate that this 'we need to speak to the offender as well as the victim if we are to solve this' approach is wet and lefty but if I believe it is the best way forward in some power dynamics ( for instance the victim of a stabbing against the person holding the knife/ public health style responses to knife crime) I cannot see why it should not be applied to all power dynamics.

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

I deliberately didn't use examples as a) I gets emotive b) opinions are largely pre formed c) it's too controversial.

On an entirely hypothetical basis I can see how one group can be local oppressors but in a wider context, the oppressed.   Perhaps they 'lash out' or oppressively control on a local basis because when confronted with the bigger picture they feel powerless and vulnerable?  Hell, we see this alpha'ing on this very forum. If we don't at least hear this voice how can we possibly know the causes, and if we don't know the cause do we really think we can solve the problem? Is it because we arrogantly assume we already know everything there is to know?

To your point above I think all views are potentially valid.  How valid depends what we want to know about, that is the point I am making above.

And thats before we begin to discuss whether if it more effective to try to legislate/ force our way to a goal than to convince and direct our way.

It's also before we discuss whether society really is formed of homologous masses that really do act as single entities.

I appreciate that this 'we need to speak to the offender as well as the victim if we are to solve this' approach is wet and lefty but if I believe it is the best way forward in some power dynamics ( for instance the victim of a stabbing against the person holding the knife/ public health style responses to knife crime) I cannot see why it should not be applied to all power dynamics.

 

I agree. All views are potentially valid, although in practice not all views are valid. But what that article was pretending was that opposing views are validated by equal oppression, while in very few cases, and not in the ones they seem to be talking about, is there equal oppression.

[Barbe bleu 813]

.

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[Jools 584]

Insane:

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I agree. All views are potentially valid, although in practice not all views are valid. But what that article was pretending was that opposing views are validated by equal oppression, while in very few cases, and not in the ones they seem to be talking about, is there equal oppression.

He was using the dichotomy to illustrate the inherent contradictions within standpoint theory. If both sides "feel" they are victims and that is their lived experience, then where is the path to resolution? There is no nuetral, dispassionate observer because there is no objectively true position to be arrived at and somebody who isn't part of the "oppressed" group has no right to an opinion on it.

I do think he could have chosen a less inflammatory example. Think about the "believe all women" phrase which went viral during Me Too and what happened to it when people on the "right side" (Biden etc) started to face allegations.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Mr.Carrow

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

7 hours ago, Mr.Carrow said:

He was using the dichotomy to illustrate the inherent contradictions within standpoint theory. If both sides "feel" they are victims and that is their lived experience, then where is the path to resolution? There is no nuetral, dispassionate observer because there is no objectively true position to be arrived at and somebody who isn't part of the "oppressed" group has no right to an opinion on it.

I do think he could have chosen a less inflammatory example. Think about the "believe all women" phrase which went viral during Me Too and what happened to it when people on the "right side" (Biden etc) started to face allegations.

It was more that the example was nonsensical, but I am happy to leave it there.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

47 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

It was more that the example was nonsensical, but I am happy to leave it there.

I think you are missing the point that critical theory includes historical oppression and victimisation in its calculations of the victim heirarchy (think about third wave feminism and the current furore over slavery and colonialism....). The Jews have a pretty solid claim to that, therefore have a pretty iron clad victim card to wave to counter the idea that they are currently oppressors. 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

This from the black linguist John McWhorter: 

https://www.persuasion.community/p/john-mcwhorter-the-neoracists

[Barbe bleu 813]

11 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

It was more that the example was nonsensical, but I am happy to leave it there.

Whether it was or was not nonsensical I feel that he was wrong to use it if he was genuinely trying to move the discussion on. 

People have strong opinions on certain matters and when these matters are used as an example the reader will find it very difficult to look beyond their prior beliefs. 

He could have made the same point in an abstract form just as successfully/unsuccessfully.  

Edited April 22, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[BigFish 1,986]

11 hours ago, Mr.Carrow said:

This from the black linguist John McWhorter: 

https://www.persuasion.community/p/john-mcwhorter-the-neoracists

I genuinly do not understand what your point is here for a number of reasons.

Firstly, there is no context. This is a thread about a government sponsored racism report. McWhorter is writing about the US, the report concerns the UK. The politics and the argument is very different, although the US model shows one possible path the debate could take it is unlikely to be applicable. The US is a very unequal society, with deep rooted equality issues evidenced by voter supression, gerrymandering and an archaic electoral system. The UK is more equal although it has some way to go to match the more egalitarian countries of norther Europe. That we are having this debate at all pretty much proves that instituitional racism exists and in both nations favours a group that are called "whites" over a group that is called "blacks" or the rather clunky "BAME".

[Mr.Carrow 376]

3 hours ago, BigFish said:

I genuinly do not understand what your point is here for a number of reasons.

Firstly, there is no context. This is a thread about a government sponsored racism report. McWhorter is writing about the US, the report concerns the UK. The politics and the argument is very different, although the US model shows one possible path the debate could take it is unlikely to be applicable. The US is a very unequal society, with deep rooted equality issues evidenced by voter supression, gerrymandering and an archaic electoral system. The UK is more equal although it has some way to go to match the more egalitarian countries of norther Europe. That we are having this debate at all pretty much proves that instituitional racism exists and in both nations favours a group that are called "whites" over a group that is called "blacks" or the rather clunky "BAME".

This isn't a debate. This is me presenting information that most on here don't seem to be aware of and getting the predictable reaction when ideologically certain people have their world view challenged. Purple at least engaged with the information and came up with a reasonable and thoughtful counterpoint. There is a wealth of information on this topic, Cynical Theories book, McWhorters book coming soon etc and if you don't understand the point I am making I suggest engaging with it.

On your last point, again, if you want to make such a simplistic blanket statement you have to explain why black Africans are doing so well in the UK but not black Caribbeans and why the same is true for people of Indian and Pakistani origin. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Mr.Carrow

[BigFish 1,986]

6 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

This isn't a debate. This is me presenting information that most on here don't seem to be aware of and getting the predictable reaction when ideologically certain people have their world view challenged. Purple at least engaged with the information and came up with a reasonable and thoughtful counterpoint. There is a wealth of information on this topic, Cynical Theories book, McWhorters book coming soon etc and if you don't understand the point I am making I suggest engaging with it.

On your last point, again, if you want to make such a simplistic blanket statement you have to explain why black Africans are doing so well in the UK but not black Caribbeans and why the same is true for people of Indian and Pakistani origin. 

Why are you presnting this information from a foreign country? I assume you are trying to make a point, all I am saying is the point you are trying to make is unclear and perhaps you could explain in more simple terms. I suspect by considering your last paragraph that your motivation might be obvious.

[BigFish 1,986]

On 16/04/2021 at 07:35, BigFish said:

Interesting post, @Fen Canary and much to agree with. What you are talking about is what economist term compositional factors. However, there is research that indicates that even after taking these factors into account there remains unexplained disparities. The report does not, and can not provide explanations for these. Surely then it is wrong to discount racism in some for being a factor?

@Mr Carrow, perhaps you should engage in some data

Edited April 22, 2021 by BigFish

[Mr.Carrow 376]

20 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Why are you presnting this information from a foreign country? I assume you are trying to make a point, all I am saying is the point you are trying to make is unclear and perhaps you could explain in more simple terms. I suspect by considering your last paragraph that your motivation might be obvious.

All I'm doing is endlessly repeating myself. CRT and Critical Theory are well established in the UK as well as the US, although probably not as advanced. We have a long tradition of importing movements from the US therefore the likes of McWhorters (and many others) input should be seen as a potential early warning.

On your second point, I really don't know how many times I need to repeat it. NOBODY (bar a handful of morons) IS SAYING THAT RACISM ISN'T A FACTOR and that includes the report in question. Simply framing it as all being about racism is not supported by the evidence, therefore is actually harmful to parsing the myriad different factors leading to some groups doing worse than others (even of their own racial group). In other words, not understanding a problem properly (or insisting on a purely ideological framing of it) actually impedes the prospect of solving it.

[BigFish 1,986]

10 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

CRT and Critical Theory are well established in the UK

Really?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Thousands of stories such as this out there:

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/i-refuse-to-stand-by-while-my-students?fbclid=IwAR0gUhMHILa3HmIpUQAvnakPlG1E9TX3TPjCnrRPm_uEV0bcP-uBvFNKMIU

[BigFish 1,986]

11 hours ago, Mr.Carrow said:

Thousands of stories such as this out there:

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/i-refuse-to-stand-by-while-my-students?fbclid=IwAR0gUhMHILa3HmIpUQAvnakPlG1E9TX3TPjCnrRPm_uEV0bcP-uBvFNKMIU

US again, I was asking for examples in the UK. Something approaching evidence would be good. I am sure that you can find RWNJ's expressing an opinion in the hope of starting a culture war, but what would be helpful is actual objective evidence rather than opinion.

[horsefly 4,287]

1 hour ago, BigFish said:

US again, I was asking for examples in the UK. Something approaching evidence would be good. I am sure that you can find RWNJ's expressing an opinion in the hope of starting a culture war, but what would be helpful is actual objective evidence rather than opinion.

I admire your gritty persistence BF but I think you're beating your head against a brick wall. I pretty much gave up bothering with this thread after MC's bizarre rant in which he said:

 "When your girlfriend only exists because when the ideologically possessed mob came for her father, he only survived because he tried to shoot himself in the heart by pulling the trigger of a rifle with his toe and missed. He was rushed to hospital and the doctors pulled him through and hid his identity. His crime? Being a very accomplished and popular teacher in Cambodia during Pol Pot's reign of evil. To the day he died he was receiving thank you letters from ex-students doing very well for themselves all around the world. I know ideological possession when I see it, and I very definitely see it on the Woke Left. If you don't see it I would think you probably only engage in media which refuses to cover it. So yes, when you see sheltered, know nothing know alls angling for history to repeat itself you could say that is coming from a dark place."

Along, with my other evil anti-racist co-conspirators I have, of course, been spending my time more usefully planning for the introduction of a Pol Pot inspired year Zero for the UK. So far we have constructed 100 guillontines, but we're clearly going to need a lot more if we are going to better Pol Pot's 2 million genocide. I know that superficially this looks a bit out of step with the aspirations of a movement that is simply asking for fair treatment for people of all races and ethnicities, however, MC has helpfully pointed out that despotism and genocide are the logical conclusion of such "woke" beliefs. . Must dash, I've a lot of wood to buy.

Edited April 23, 2021 by horsefly

[sonyc 5,491]

On 21/04/2021 at 09:44, Barbe bleu said:

that there is a school of thought that only the oppressed should be able to state a view. The theory being that oppression reveals itself only in full to the oppressed and therefore someone of privilege simply cannot speak of a reality they have no perception, let alone understanding, of.

The last point, the point you quote above, is saying that if we follow this lead we must simultaneously deny a voice to one group as an oppressor on a 'local' scale and whilst granting them the very same voice as an oppressed group on a regional basis. Even if we can get ourselves free of this conundrum this 'standpoint approach', he continues,  is the antipathy of an approach that requires us to think it terms of compromise.

The conclusion, I think, being 'life is complicated and everyone has a part to play in it. Let everyone have their say and learn from one another

One important contributor to understanding oppression is Paulo Freire. He might well be simply dismissed by many because he was: (a) a Brazilian educator, who is perhaps less universally known, and (b) he has been characterised by his "Marxist" views. I wouldn't criticise him here because his main focus is on the dynamics of relationships (and inequality of) from a Marx viewpoint and not about how national states should be run.

In my opinion, he is one of the most important philosophers whose time (arguably of course) is still to come. I am lucky too to have read about him and been able to test out his ideas with similar thinking colleagues in the real world. I am sure therefore through empirical study that the 'oppressed' must feel a sense of personal agency for them to help lead their own individual change. Therefore I can see a viewpoint whereby an oppressed person's views is at the very least very significant and arguably, the most important view.

Barbe, I could give many, many examples of folk who have changed lives for the good (from very humble beginnings) where they have started on their course being and encouraged to feel 'settled' ("settling" being a term we developed to encapsulate a very important stage for a person to begin to find their voice). Once a person feels more on the level with another, you start to have real dialogue. The personal stories of others I have been lucky enough to witness (and partially understand) make up real high points in my life (i.e. a person one might deem oppressed shaking off their chains). An example of privilege one might say.

Freire's main book "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" is an excellent source. He outlines how educators and learners can best work together to create change. His definition of oppression is attached below.

Freire often used photos, images etc to encourage those who had educational disadvantage (whether by income, the powerless, etc....in other words, the oppressed). There are other methods.

It is hard here to write without labelling. I do so simply to try and explain his concepts. Anyway, really worth reading up on him if you're interested? There are many neat summaries of his book as well as critiques of Freire's ideas. 

For me, Freire (like Jung too) is very relevant for our world today. His method is really grounded in reality, through trial, through observation. The issue of 'levelling up' is of course political because what else isn't in this field (like the race report)?.... but Freire's work is of deep importance. We have great teachers too who understand education (thankfully!) on this very forum and will know and understand Freire's work. Better than I too.

Apologies for a long-ish post but the aim is simply to reference a point of view worth further exploration 🙂

 

Edited April 23, 2021 by sonyc

[Rock The Boat 1,325]

1 hour ago, sonyc said:

One important contributor to understanding oppression is Paulo Freire. He might well be simply dismissed by many because he was: (a) a Brazilian educator, who is perhaps less universally known, and (b) he has been characterised by his "Marxist" views. I wouldn't criticise him here because his main focus is on the dynamics of relationships (and inequality of) from a Marx viewpoint and not about how national states should be run.

In my opinion, he is one of the most important philosophers whose time (arguably of course) is still to come. I am lucky too to have read about him and been able to test out his ideas with similar thinking colleagues in the real world. I am sure therefore through empirical study that the 'oppressed' must feel a sense of personal agency for them to help lead their own individual change. Therefore I can see a viewpoint whereby an oppressed person's views is at the very least very significant and arguably, the most important view.

Barbe, I could give many, many examples of folk who have changed lives for the good (from very humble beginnings) where they have started on their course being and encouraged to feel 'settled' ("settling" being a term we developed to encapsulate a very important stage for a person to begin to find their voice). Once a person feels more on the level with another, you start to have real dialogue. The personal stories of others I have been lucky enough to witness (and partially understand) make up real high points in my life (i.e. a person one might deem oppressed shaking off their chains). An example of privilege one might say.

Freire's main book "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" is an excellent source. He outlines how educators and learners can best work together to create change. His definition of oppression is attached below.

Freire often used photos, images etc to encourage those who had educational disadvantage (whether by income, the powerless, etc....in other words, the oppressed). There are other methods.

It is hard here to write without labelling. I do so simply to try and explain his concepts. Anyway, really worth reading up on him if you're interested? There are many neat summaries of his book as well as critiques of Freire's ideas. 

For me, Freire (like Jung too) is very relevant for our world today. His method is really grounded in reality, through trial, through observation. The issue of 'levelling up' is of course political because what else isn't in this field (like the race report)?.... but Freire's work is of deep importance. We have great teachers too who understand education (thankfully!) on this very forum and will know and understand Freire's work. Better than I too.

Apologies for a long-ish post but the aim is simply to reference a point of view worth further exploration 🙂

 

Thanks, Sonyc, eloquent as always, Dehumanising someone is as good a definition of oppression as any and we can spoy examples of that going on fairly easily. I always felt that the tactics of Brexit Remain campaign were a form of oppression in the way that they branded Leavers as uneducated, elderly, low-status who didn't uderstand what they voted for. This tactic is essentially dehumanising a group of people and would come within the definition of oppression as Friere describes it.

One thing that I think is not particularly necessary within his definition is the last part: "they often stereotype oppressed people as violent for responding to oppression" Friere seems to have tacked that on almost as a way of excusing violence perpetrated by oppressed people. He is allowing oppressed people to behave violently without actually saying it, and I think that should not be any part of a definition of oppression.

[BigFish 1,986]

On 23/04/2021 at 20:55, Rock The Boat said:

One thing that I think is not particularly necessary within his definition is the last part: "they often stereotype oppressed people as violent for responding to oppression" Friere seems to have tacked that on almost as a way of excusing violence perpetrated by oppressed people. He is allowing oppressed people to behave violently without actually saying it, and I think that should not be any part of a definition of oppression.

This is about face. Race is a social construct with the sole purpose of condoning violence by the powerful on the oppressed. This whole culture war is based on the privileged arguing that there is nothing wrong with the system, only something wrong with those excluded.

[horsefly 4,287]

8 minutes ago, BigFish said:

This is about face. Race is a social construct with the sole purpose of condoning violence by the powerful on the oppressed. This whole culture war is based on the privileged arguing that there is nothing wrong with the system, only something wrong with those excluded.

Goodness knows how appalled RTB must be by the behaviour of Moses, and as for Sparticus.... I could go on but I suspect it is unnecessary.

[Rock The Boat 1,325]

6 hours ago, BigFish said:

This is about face. Race is a social construct with the sole purpose of condoning violence by the powerful on the oppressed. This whole culture war is based on the privileged arguing that there is nothing wrong with the system, only something wrong with those excluded.

So you're saying powerful people have created Race. I think you have just answered your own question to Mr. Carrow as to whether CRT is established within the UK.

[Daz Sparks 1,149]

All this complexity about the argument somewhat goes over head of a regular Joe like myself.

My take on it is that I liken being racist to being pregnant, you either are, or you ain't, that goes for Individuals, Corporations, Organisations or Governments.

[BigFish 1,986]

11 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

So you're saying powerful people have created Race. I think you have just answered your own question to Mr. Carrow as to whether CRT is established within the UK.

Far from it, @Mr Carrow has gone quiet since I asked him for evidence that CRT is established in the UK. I am not expecting an answer, because there simply isn't any evidence. What we have is an attempted culture war by RWNJs and their friends in the media that is using badly understood but obscure academic theories to perpetuate inequality.

Truth is **** Sapiens originated in what is now Morocco before spreading across the globe. We have of the order of 20,000 genes and a mere handful control pigmentation. I am sorry to break it to you but the lighter pigmentation I suspect we share is an adaptation. Human difference is a continuum, no one has agreed how many races there are or what are their essential features beyound crude generalisations about skin colour, hair texture and a few facial features. Pseudo-scientific Western European ideas about race only began in the seventeenth centuries to replace religion and language as a differentiator and justify oppression and slavery. That is not CRT, that is Biology, Genetics and History.

Edited April 26, 2021 by BigFish

[BigFish 1,986]

1 hour ago, BigFish said:

Far from it, @Mr Carrow has gone quiet since I asked him for evidence that CRT is established in the UK. I am not expecting an answer, because there simply isn't any evidence. What we have is an attempted culture war by RWNJs and their friends in the media that is using badly understood but obscure academic theories to perpetuate inequality.

Truth is **** Sapiens originated in what is now Morocco before spreading across the globe. We have of the order of 20,000 genes and a mere handful control pigmentation. I am sorry to break it to you but the lighter pigmentation I suspect we share is an adaptation. Human difference is a continuum, no one has agreed how many races there are or what are their essential features beyound crude generalisations about skin colour, hair texture and a few facial features. Pseudo-scientific Western European ideas about race only began in the seventeenth centuries to replace religion and language as a differentiator and justify oppression and slavery. That is not CRT, that is Biology, Genetics and History.

Pretty poor H.omo doesn't passd the filter

[king canary 7,578]

1 hour ago, BigFish said:

Far from it, @Mr Carrow has gone quiet since I asked him for evidence that CRT is established in the UK. I am not expecting an answer, because there simply isn't any evidence. What we have is an attempted culture war by RWNJs and their friends in the media that is using badly understood but obscure academic theories to perpetuate inequality.

Truth is **** Sapiens originated in what is now Morocco before spreading across the globe. We have of the order of 20,000 genes and a mere handful control pigmentation. I am sorry to break it to you but the lighter pigmentation I suspect we share is an adaptation. Human difference is a continuum, no one has agreed how many races there are or what are their essential features beyound crude generalisations about skin colour, hair texture and a few facial features. Pseudo-scientific Western European ideas about race only began in the seventeenth centuries to replace religion and language as a differentiator and justify oppression and slavery. That is not CRT, that is Biology, Genetics and History.

I agree with you that CRT isn't established here- however I'm not sure it won't be. I can see where Mr Carrow is coming from- we import far too much of our politics from the states, especially the younger activist generation and in all honestly I'd rather head this sort of madness off early rather than wait until it gets embedded in the way it is in the states.