Michael Smith of Utah writes:
"I just can't get past the idea that our most significant problem is the superficiality of our society.
So, few people on either side think deeply about anything before opening their cake holes to illuminate the world with the light of their ignorance.
Last night I read about what Jenn Jackson, a political science professor at Syracuse University, said about 9/11. I understand that the left never misses a chance to crap all over everything, and it is sort of a leftist tradition to pull out the stops on 9/11 anniversaries, but this one was spectacular.
She (I assume her pronoun is "she”) sparked a major uproar after tweeting: "We have to be more honest about what 9/11 was and what it wasn't. It was an attack on the heteropatriarchal capitalistic systems that America relies upon to wrangle other countries into passivity.”
OK.
If you have ever spent any time in corporate America – and have been stuck a meeting that was really a portal to PowerPoint Hell, you have heard this kind of statement before. It happens when the presenter: 1) doesn’t know what she is talking about, 2) knows but her data is so weak, he thinks he needs to pump it up with smart sounding words or 3) she is trying to bury the facts in a cacophonous word salad because they do not support her goals.
Those meetings are filled with the unintelligible corporate jargon that qualifies for business newspeak: “The new normal forces us to pivot and circle back to thinking out of the box and creating synergies by listening to thought leaders and being agile in our alignment.”
It is like living in a live action version of a Dilbert cartoon.
Superficial thinking is the order of the day, and this superficiality prevents theoreticians and their audience from thinking past their initial conceptions and applying the bounds of their own theories to, unsurprisingly, their own theories.
For example, any form of Critical Race Theory (LatCRT (Latino/Latina Critical Race Theory), etc.) cannot survive critical examination of itself. For example, LatCRT proposes that people of Spanish extraction were present in North America before White Europeans, so they have a more valid claim to be “Americans” and control America than do whites. They are the “original” Americans.
We are witness to the hyperbolic reasoning of every hysterical “activist”, how every “subjugated class” presumes to claim their little slice of the pie due to some presumed “wrong” done to them by someone, somewhere, at some point in the revisionist version of their history. That’s all the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, the Derrick Bell version of Critical Race Theory and the LatCRT of Tara J. Yosso are.
I always marvel at both the “reparations” crowd wailing about slavery like only American blacks were subject to that reprehensible institution and the “multitud enojada” (angry mob) of La Raza claiming that the Southwest is really “Azteca” – their “ownership” probably would come as a great surprise to the Apache, Comanche, Havasupai, Hopi, Jemez, Kiowa, Kiowa Apache, Lipan, Maricopa, Mohave, Navaho, Paiute, Papago, Panamint, Pecos, Pima, Pueblo, Shoshoni, Sobaipuri, Tewa Pueblos, Ute, Walapai, Yavapai, Yuma and Zuñi and the Anasazi, who predated all of them.
And the modern proponents of LatCRT never seem to address their own Spanish heritage of conquest and the fact that South America saw more slavery (including black Africans) and genocide that did North America (actually, most of the black Africans from the Atlantic slave trade – 97% - went to South and Latin America, not North America).
The same with slavery – the Critical Race Theorists claim that 1619 is the date white Europeans created slavery in the New World, when, for centuries, the native civilizations of the Western Hemisphere had been taking slaves (usually entire tribes the had defeated in war) for centuries. CRT proponents completely ignore slavery in Africa prior to the beginning of the Atlantic slave trade and the fact that slavery was a common part of the civilizations inhabiting the continent.
All forms of Critical Race Theory deny the existence of the millions of white Americans who are below the poverty line. If the only explanation for the lack of socioeconomic status is race, these people should not exist.
When theoreticians pick a convenient point in history or a convenient action as a basis for their claims, that “theory” is not based in reality.
The proponents of these theories know their positions cannot withstand examination under their own rules – that is why the use the Kafkaesque retort that even criticism proves their theories, that for a white person to say they are not a racist just proves they are. It is why Larry Elder, a conservative black man from South Central LA can be labeled, by a major newspaper, as the “black face of white supremacy”.
It is lunacy. Pure, unadulterated insanity.
And yet the people who should know better – academicians, teachers, and scientists – are promoting this idiocy and impregnating our public-school curriculum with it.
People make a mistake by attacking CRT from the perspective of race or social science. Attack it from a logic and reason angle.
Saul Alinsky’s Rule #4 destroys all variants of the Derrick Bell form of CRT: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.""
Class dismissed.
Posts
