

 |
| "The group identity game.. (Page 5/5) |
|
2.5
|
DEC 20, 02:25 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
That may have been the goal, but the point was not made. Not even close.
|
|
Was it at least made after it was explained to you?
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
DEC 20, 03:35 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 2.5: Another way the left changes the meaning of words, they make some meaningless. |
|
The meaning of words is almost always in play when contentious issues are being contended.
Do you think it's just the "left"..?
| quote | Called an “in-demand activist” by the Washington Post, [Christopher] Rufo described on Twitter how he intentionally attempts to conflate a number of progressive ideas in an effort to confuse the public over what critical race theory actually is.
“We have successfully frozen their brand — ‘critical race theory’ — into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions,” Rufo wrote. “We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category.” |
|
That allegation, about what Christopher Rufo put out on Twitter, sounds like someone from the right--clearly, Rufo is not from the left--deliberately trying to change the meaning of words that are in the public discourse.
"Conservative activist who ‘invented’ clash over ‘critical race theory’ leads [Michigan] Senate hearing"
| quote | | Bill would dock funding for school districts that teach concept |
|
Anna Gustafson for Michigan Advance; October 5, 2021. https://michiganadvance.com...eads-senate-hearing/
|
|
|
2.5
|
DEC 20, 03:51 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
The meaning of words is almost always in play when contentious issues are being contended.
Do you think it's just the "left"..? |
|
In this thread topic, yes.
Always throughout time? No.
Another note that arguing a meaning or use of a word is one thing, actually changing the dictionary seems like another.[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 12-20-2021).]
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
DEC 20, 04:39 PM
|
|

I am going to depart from my usual (and longstanding) practice of not duplicating an online text in its entirety. This is the whole enchilada.
| quote | Appropriation.
That word sums up what’s happening in Connecticut and across America right now.
Defined as “the act of taking something that belongs to somebody else, especially without permission,” appropriation has become a go-to propaganda technique. The term “Critical Race Theory” is its latest victim.
Critical Race Theory (CRT) “critiques how the social construction of race and institutionalized racism perpetuate a racial caste system that relegates people of color to the bottom tiers,” explains the American Bar Association.
CRT was developed in the 1980s by legal scholars – notably Kimberlé Crenshaw of UCLA and Columbia Law Schools – to guide law students in “asking questions and looking at the way that law has been a conduit for racial inequality.” CRT has found its way into other areas of higher education, but has remained a concept studied exclusively by college students.
Recently, “Critical Race Theory” has been appropriated by “activists and parents [who] have begun using it as a catch-all term to refer to what [K-12] schools often call equity programs, teaching about racism or LGBTQ-inclusive policies,” according to an NBC News analysis. “The groups swarm school board meetings, inundate districts with time-consuming public records requests and file lawsuits and federal complaints alleging discrimination against white students.”
Connecticut communities have not been spared. A Greenwich Board of Education meeting on June 17 was besieged by CRT opponents like Jackie Homan, who said, “Critical Race Theory says my children were born racist simply because they were born white. How can that be? When are we going to get back to academics instead of activism?”
Guilford was the site one week later of a “forum attended by about 100 people sponsored by a national group called No Left Turn in Education, which argues that an anti-white, radical leftist agenda is being used by public schools to indoctrinate students.”
For his part, Guilford Superintendent of Schools Paul Freeman has explained that while CRT is not part of the district curriculum, students do discuss issues of race: “We are not teaching white children that they are racist or bad or need to feel guilt. We are trying to help all of our kids be able to talk about race, like everything else, in a healthy, open way.”
As a high school English teacher with 30 years of classroom experience, I concur. I have taught literary works such as “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “A Raisin in the Sun” with systemic racism as a central theme, but I had never heard the term “Critical Race Theory” until this year. It certainly appears nowhere in my school’s curriculum. But don’t tell that to members of the 165 local and national groups intent on disrupting local board meetings.
These opponents of … what? Diversity? Open discussion of racism? An accurate study of American history? Well, these opponents have successfully hijacked the term “Critical Race Theory” and weaponized it. The appropriation is complete.
That the term has been deliberately co-opted is no secret. Journalist Christopher Rufo first learned of CRT from an individual who had attended anti-bias training in Seattle last summer. Immediately, Rufo recognized the term as the “perfect villain,” telling New Yorker writer Benjamin Wallace-Wells, “Strung together, the phrase ‘critical race theory’ connotes [ideas that are] hostile, academic, divisive, race-obsessed, poisonous, elitist, anti-American.’”
Rufo’s assault on CRT went national. He appeared on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show in September and soon after “flew to Washington, D.C., to assist in drafting an executive order, issued by the White House in late September, that limited how contractors providing federal diversity seminars could talk about race.”
As Rufo himself wrote to Wallis-Wells, “This entire movement came from nothing.”
Just six months later, Rufo tweeted this triumphant declaration: “We have successfully frozen their brand – ‘critical race theory’ – into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category.”
Mission accomplished: Propaganda by appropriation.
This strategy has been so successful that “[d]ozens of Republican-backed bills banning the teaching of divisive topics on race and inequality are piling up in Congress and in statehouses across the country.”
Even in Connecticut, Sen. Rob Sampson, a Republican from Wolcott, floated an amendment – eventually defeated along party lines – that sought to “bar public schools from teaching ‘divisive concepts.’” When asked to provide examples, Sampson offered none, saying only, “It’s been happening all across the country.”
Actually, what’s been happening all across the country is an irrational reaction by disruptive activists to an appropriated version of an academic idea that is not even taught in K-12 schools. If the past year has revealed anything about Critical Race Theory – and America itself – it’s that CRT’s general premise is true: Systemic racism is a reality of American life that does not discriminate because it continues to haunt all of us, regardless of color.
Barth Keck is in his 30th year as an English teacher and in his 15th year as assistant football coach at Haddam-Killingworth High School in Higganum where he teaches courses in journalism, media literacy, and AP English Language and Composition. Email Barth here.
The views, opinions, positions, or strategies expressed by the author are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or positions of CTNewsJunkie.com. |
|
"OP-ED | Critical Race Theory: A Case Study in Appropriation" Barth Keck for CTNewsJunkie; June 28, 2021. https://ctnewsjunkie.com/20...dy-in-appropriation/[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-20-2021).]
|
|
|
2.5
|
DEC 20, 04:46 PM
|
|
Whomever titled the classes Critical Race Theory, indeed probably wasn't the brightest, but I also am willing to bet they were a proponent of it. But you seem to have latched onto CRT as if it is the only thing we are talking about, I'd be fine if you stopped distracting yourself with three letters, and maybe re-listened to the opening video and focused on the principles instead. I actually find that in life it isnt good to get caught up in propaganda, but to figure out the principles and ideas behind what the argument is and dissect it myself.
Rinse, when I asked "Do you deny that what Desantis said is and was happening is and was happening?" You said "No." But then you continue to perpetuate it.[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 12-20-2021).]
|
|
|
Hudini
|
DEC 20, 05:38 PM
|
|
"Actually, what’s been happening all across the country is an irrational reaction by disruptive activists to an appropriated version of an academic idea that is not even taught in K-12 schools. If the past year has revealed anything about Critical Race Theory – and America itself – it’s that CRT’s general premise is true: Systemic racism is a reality of American life that does not discriminate because it continues to haunt all of us, regardless of color."
This is completely stupid. Systemic racism was ended with the Civil Rights Act of 1965. There is NO "system" in place to promote racism. None. The Jim Crow laws of the Democrats were made illegal. There is individual racism for sure and it's universally condemned. No rational person believes one race is superior to another.
And why do people think if they say CRT isn't being taught in schools, but the ideas that make up CRT ARE being taught, it magically makes opponents of CRT "disruptive activists?" Word games are being played here and we need to recognize what they are doing. Don't be fooled by the propaganda. They may have changed the name but the ideas are still there.
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
DEC 20, 06:16 PM
|
|
Let's take the 1619 Project as an example. It started as a special report, published by the New York Times, and has become a book. I don't know the exact title. I guess it has "1619" in the title.
If a state legislature passes a law that puts barriers in the way of an elementary school, middle school or high school teacher taking the 1619 book and using it as a textbook for an entire semester of Social Studies or History education in the classroom--OK.
If a state legislature passes a law that tries to prevent any of these K-12 teachers from bringing the 1619 book to the attention of their students in any way, I'm against that law.
I think any K-12 teacher should have the option of assigning their students to read a passage or section from the 1619 book and have a classroom discussion about it.
I have seen the 1619 Project called "vile sewage" on this very forum--if I looked, I think I could find that. I think that's way overboard and "out of line" to use that kind of language about it.
Certainly, the 1619 Project has its critics. I was reading (yesterday) comments about it from George Will that the 1619 Project overlooks some very pertinent facts and historical realities, and so there are weaknesses in the 1619 assertion that the purpose behind the American Revolution was to protect and continue the system of Black slavery as it already existed in the original 13 Colonies.
But I think a K-12 teacher should have the option of using the 1619 Project or book as a resource. I think there is likely a lot of good history in the 1619 material, even if the overarching assertion(s) about the American Revolution are not on firm (evidential) ground.
Has "your" state legislature adopted any laws of this kind? Are they being discussed in the state legislature? Are you concerned that these kind of laws could go too far in what they try to mandate or prohibit, in terms of K-12 classroom education?
I am not even aware of how this topic is playing out in terms of state-funded community colleges and undergraduate education at state universities. Most, if not all of the reporting that I have seen is about K-12.
I really don't know what "my" California state legislature has gotten up to, about this.
If I find an opportune moment, I may review that video that featured Ron DeSantis.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-20-2021).]
|
|
|
sourmash
|
DEC 20, 06:21 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 2.5:
Another way the left changes the meaning of words, they make some meaningless. |
|
Not just the left. Rush Limbaugh changed the definition of the word "conservative". He also helped make it nearly meaningless, as Chickenhawks and moderates call themselves by that name.[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 12-20-2021).]
|
|
|
Rickady88GT
|
DEC 20, 08:36 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by sourmash:
Not just the left. Rush Limbaugh changed the definition of the word "conservative". He also helped make it nearly meaningless, as Chickenhawks and moderates call themselves by that name.
|
|
I LOVED Rush, He had a gift of telling it how it is AND played MLB (In the eyes) with salt better than anyone else. Genius at bamboo under the nails of liberals
|
|
|
2.5
|
DEC 21, 11:53 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
But I think a K-12 teacher should have the option of using the 1619 Project or book as a resource. I think there is likely a lot of good history in the 1619 material, even if the overarching assertion(s) about the American Revolution are not on firm (evidential) ground.
|
|
Is that like the opposite of the ends justify the means? You are fine focusing on the means, even teaching it, but disagree wit the ends?
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
If I find an opportune moment, I may review that video that featured Ron DeSantis.
|
|
That would be a good idea, to review the post content you've been replying to and about. Not only that but the opening post video with the over arching meaning.
|
|

 |
|