U.S. News

Critical Race Theory and Prohibition Fraud

Once again, the racist and fascist American right wing is betraying the American public, this time by declaring that critical racial theory is an existential threat to America. Follow this concept, as it happened in the 1990s with the idea of ​​political correctness and as it is now with the so-called demolition culture.

Aside from the fact that in the case of Critical Racial Theory, politicians have passed laws to ban it from the curricula of public schools and universities in Texas, Idaho, Florida, Montana, Iowa, Tennessee, and Oklahoma. Six other states and a dozen local school districts continue to debate the need to ban critical racial theory in public schools.

Instead, these bans are specifically aimed at eliminating the 246-year history of African slavery in colonial British America and the United States, as well as all common references to the history of institutional racism in the United States. Specifically, those bans include the award-winning Project 1619, edited by Nikole Hannah-Jones, recently denied a permanent seat by the Board of Trustees of the University of North Carolina.

In Loudoun County, Virginia, this week a group of parents anti-racial critics gathered in a parking lot before a school board meeting: “All they do is change the narrative. Critical race theory is a “culturally attractive framework”, a “culturally attractive teaching.” They are just Trojan horses, ”said a bloated father.

Some of the proposed bills, such as the bill that failed to pass in the Rhode Island State Parliament earlier this year, exposed the true intentions of those who prohibit critical racial theory. “This law would prohibit the teaching of divisive concepts and … would prohibit anyone from feeling uncomfortable, guilty, fearful or harassed because of her race or gender,” wrote the bill’s sponsors.

That anyone could define “divisive concepts” as the equivalent of teaching the entire history of the United States and its history of systemic racism is ridiculous. However, the “uncomfortable” or “distressed” part is incredibly enlightening.

The Rhode Island bill exposes white frailty, the absolute narcissistic need to create myths, deny and defend racism by labeling all anti-racism efforts as racist. Not to mention the need to teach the truth, hold peoples and systems accountable for past and present racist and sexist injustices in America.

The truth is that any explanation of human history and existence inevitably brings with it “anguish” or “agony” because both have a very ugly side. The nature of all Critical Racial Theory prohibitions is a bait and switch to explain the doctrine of a broader history of the United States and its racism as a racist act. This tactic centers white men, and especially white men, as victims and black and brown scholars, especially black public intellectuals, as villains.

There is no regard for the “discomfort” or “anguish” of blacks, brunettes, and Native Americans in teaching a whitewashed, white-centered history. Black or indigenous students do not care if they somehow learn of the racism that led to the systemic enslavement of their ancestors, or if they discover genocidal policies against their people, either inside or outside the classroom. Most of the students in America’s public schools are black and brown, but the bill’s only concern is essentially white “individuals.”

But absolutely none of the current false controversies about critical race theory revolves around critical race theory. Critical racial theory is about much more than infusing black, brown, and Native American history into American history. The theory is quite complex and emerged from critical legal studies in the law school community.

It focuses on exposing the systemic racism that is anchored in every area of ​​American law, local, state, and federal politics, and everyday American culture and customs.

Critical racial theorists question even the most basic and sacred assumptions about American society. And they do it through biography, allegory, storytelling, and not just through direct intellectual debate.


Back to top button