Talk:Critical race theory
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Critical race theory article.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 1 month may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
I still posit that the comments of Mr. Shapiro are not relevant to this article. His graduating law school a few years ago merely adds him to the ranks of the million or two lawyers extant in the USA. His accomplishments since graduation appear to be hosting right-wing talk radio, multiple appearances on Fox News, becoming an editor at breitbart.com, and having WorldNetDaily publish his pamphlet. I believe he falls easily into the politically-motivated category.
I believe the Pyle except from the Boston Law Review should remain, but don't think Shapiro has the credentials necessary or worthy to merit the inclusion of the derogatory statements he makes prior to introducing the Pyle text. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Paul
- I just deleted an unformated, non-constructive and unsigned reaction to the above. I also fixed the spelling of "derogatory" ;) Jonny Quick (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Mr. Shapiro's qualifications are as evident as any other and the cited sources meet Wikipedia's standards. Your personal disdain for sources deemed "conservative" make it no less so. Indeed the lack of criticism from the academic Left is not evidence of it being any less worthy of criticism. Thank you Ben Shapiro, please tell a friend. EyePhoenix (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I understand that rightwing/white criticism gets ignored, but maybe the negative reception in Europe should be addressed? (Eg. in Germany the terminology was introduced in universities, but immigrant organisations oppose the concept and argue that in Europe they are discriminated because of being non-germans/french/.. or muslims and not because of "being Black". Many claim that critical whiteness studies do not fit for Europe, complain that various US-theories get simply copied by the European left and that artifical categories get imposed on immigrants, who have to deal with other problems) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- We cover what the sources discuss, but not our personal analysis. Do you have any reliable sources that talk about the application of Critical Race Theory in places outside of the US? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Fundamental, Critical, Genetic Differences in Races
Does "Critical Race Theory" take into account that one component of racial divisions may be that there are scientifically provable differences between races, and that at least some of what passes for "racism" is really the natural reaction to the suppression of that possible truth, to the extent that it is considered racist to even ask the question(s), such as if there are scientifically demonstrable differences in intelligence between races, that some races are more or less likely to commit crime and violence, that some races have demonstrated a superior ability to adapt to a changing environment and survive while others do not, etc... In short, does CRT allow for the question that one race may be better or worse than another in some respect?Jonny Quick (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am not really sure, but Nazism does. Perhaps you might feel more comfortable editing that article? Hammersbach (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Wiki's Tone and usage of supposed and so-called
So-called White people say that White xyz does not exist. You see can, depending on our politics, take issue with everything that WE decided is not 100% factual. Well, how do we establish any statements if we add this editorial tone to things? Because the existence of "White people" is not a "fact", the existence of WP is not a "fact". So when we write an article on Racism we cannot de legitimize accusations of racism by inserting So-called, or supposed. It is empty and political editing. And I have dealt with this issue many times on wiki over the years. --Inayity (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm. Your so called NOPV sucks eggs. That's how So Called should be used.
I came here to read up on a theory, and having studied political theory, I expected an article on the theory, not an article on that theory without criticisms from anyone other than pop stars.
The weakest point, IMHO, is the contention that white people (so called or not) did this all solely for self interest. Self interest is indeed a great driving force in history and always has been. But, and it's a big but, this theory's contention rests on archival evidence that people at the DOJ wrote memos justifying their jobs? It's even weaker than I thought.
There needs to be a criticisms section. From real academics.
I would think some one at some point has broken this down by religion. Jewish people, for example, post WWII would have a different view from Protestants on the Jim Crow laws that war criminals tried to use to justify their crimes.
I would think some one at some point would have taken a harder look at Ike thinking Brown v Board was the worst SCOTUS decision in US history, and someone would have attempted to resolve that with the official view out of DC.
Or that Warren ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps but watched as California schools were ordered integrated as he was governor. And Truman's decision to integrate the military to win the election would have had an impact on returning Korean War veterans (for no reason other than watching a person of another color face death is a great equalizer).
Someone out there has either thought about it or done the research to reconcile history with this theory, or used these to refute.
That doesn't resolve the no criticism, review by academics issue. I'm serious about this. Without criticism, review, discussion, it ranks as a fringe theory. I'm came to this while trying to understand another issue, and I find it weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
And you have some magical powers to assume how much time I've spent on it?
Lawyers and judges consider the pragmatic legal implications of a philosophy, and since CRT is proposed as a theory of how the racial legal divide works, you can stretch that to be criticism. I note no noted legal scholars here, however. Gates, love him, is a pop star nowadays. Etc. I also note, no academic credentials looking at the historic or philosophical underpinnings (eg, its needs a good political science academic review). It's possible that simply has not been done, and that would be a shame.
That last particularly caught my eye. A hypothesis based on deconstruction has never been deconstructed? Seriously?
This is friendly advice, FYI. If there are divergent professional views, they need to be expressed here. If people are on wiki and looking this up, many will decide to look up articles written by people who rail against all personal identity politics (ie, those who believe diversity isn't *really* necessary). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)