No CRT in schools! Flat screens have been the norm for decades now. It's not just that they take up less space and have higher resolution. They also use less energy and they're cheaper than the old bulky monitors were. Even if someone somewhere still has a working monitor with a Cathode Ray Tube in it, it probably has cost more in electricity, cumulatively, than it would have cost to replace it twenty years ago, just once. Everyone using a computer should also be using 8086 or newer architecture, not the old Virtual Adress eXtension system from Digital Equipment Corporation. And why was there all that noise a few years ago about the Bureau of Land Management?
@@KingZNIN The CRT that I'm talking about, as I said, stands for Cathode Ray Tubes. They're how television sets used to work. Of course, there would be no humor in talking about Cathode Ray Tubes, if not for the fact that they share an initialism with Critical Race Theory.
People who call themselves "Marxist" aren't literally thinking that Marx's works is beyond reproach, they are calling themselves that because they are using Marx's ideas as a jumping off point for their own ideas, arguments and politics. It's a school of thought, not a religion. Any Marxist is free to ignore or outright reject portions of Marx's works, and most do.
Yep. To your point, I know very few serious Marxists who aren't critical of Marx and his limitations. Marxism is simply historical materialism, which rejects any "great man" theory of history, even if that man is Marx. I like how Lukacs puts it: "Admit for the sake of argument that all of the particular affirmations of Marx have been shown to be factually inaccurate by modern scholarship. A serious Marxist can recognize all this new evidence, reject all of the particular theses of Marx, and yet not be forced for an instant to renounce his Marxist orthodoxy. For orthodox Marxism does not mean an uncritical acceptance of the results of Marx’ research, it is not the exegeses of a “sacred book” or “faith” in this or that thesis. In Marxism, orthodoxy refers solely and exclusively to the question of *method*."
I mean some Marxists ABSOLUTELY treat his word as good for sure. But that's kind of the case with any kind of movement with a father type figure. Its still something we should acknowledge because its not like its a completely miniscule amount and god knows they really do quote the Communist Manifesto like its a bible.
Using Marxism as placeholder for religion sure has been tried at catastrophically attempts tho. This is the main problem with secular ideology. Humans are most likely wired in a way in witch we approach ideology in a certain way, which is the exclusion of other ideologies in favor of a monolithic system, and that's the reason that ultimately leads to the persecution and ethnic/cultural cleansing of others. Secular ideology have as much or even more death on it's conscience in't it's attempt to rid the world of theological ideology. The main issue at the core of these issues is probably a human genetic condition and this issue is unlikely to be resolved for hundreds of generations. My own theory is that about any ideology is more or less functional, but it's our genetic predisposition and natural competitiveness that create ideological monoliths that brings us all under one system that screws it up. Marxism have functioned rather well for Vietnam and have had a massive influence several Nordic countries even tho they never fully committed to it. Capitalism as well as a vary of theocratic system have worked rather well for other states.
@@SomeCanineThat would mean poor parents would have to choose between funding their kids’ school or feeding them at all. There simply would be no school for poor kids.
1) everything about this is so good 2) oh no, why you gotta call me out like this. I have totally slipped from "conducting an intersectional analysis" to "being intersectional" and now I'm cringing at a lot of my work. Ok but really, this was very very very good. I am another former debate kid so I am familiar with a lot of the big policy cases, but not necessarily the details behind them, and even thinking of myself as fairly well informed, I spent a ton of this video going "really!?" I think you presented this in an extremely accessible way and have really filled in a lot of gaps for me that I was unaware I had. Thank you.
Great video so far---I'm just dipping my toes into it, but already I'm engaged. I've been hesitant to talk about CRT because I realize most of the information floating around about it is bad info, and talking about something from a foundation of bad info is worse than admitting ignorance.
@@Sara3346 In my experience, admitting ignorance is a great place to begin--and is much better than parroting bad information. Especially when you're talking about complex issues like this one--where there is soooo much bad info out there.
Wholeheartedly agree! It's tough to learn and grow in a subject area when so much of it is just a political shouting match without much academic/intellectual dialogue. This is important information and should be talked about/handled with much more care and nuance than it is. I wish more people could humble themselves and say "hey, I don't know what I'm talking about, can you teach me" and actually listen to the experts.
Im an attorney, can confirm the 99 problems joke got me to chuckle. Edit to add: your video touches on this when talking about the Amicus Briefs, but isn't explicit about it. I think a more useful interpretation of Interest Convergence is that it is a useful tool for approaching policy argument. Rather than saying the courts are only making decisions the help dismantle systems of opression because another interest is benefited, it is using an argument that connects a system of opression to a larger more mainstream interest that the court (especially one without the same lived experience as a marginalized person) can latch onto.
I’ve missed of the nuances and details on this topic for YEARS. Probably doesn’t help that I’m not from the US but… thank-you. I finally feel like I’m starting to understand both what CRT actually is and what everyone talking about it seems to think it is. Hecking excellent video!
I do think the people doing the fearmongering know. Critical theory is a threat to conservatism as it presents the present as just a moment in time and not a sacred state that must be protected.
This was great at giving a more robust understanding of what CRT *actually* says and what it would be used for. It's far more a diagnostic tool than any kind of overt philosophy. Bit of a reach, but my first thought was comparing it to the Bechdel test. Like, no individual movie failing the Bechdel test tells you anything about the movie. But when broad swaths of movies fail it, it kinda says there's a problem with the culture of movies. Likewise, CRT is more about asking "Is the problem the output, or is the problem the system?" That critical analysis keeps turning up "yeah, it's the system" is just a diagnostic test, and a warning that it needs attention.
As a Canadian teacher candidate, I am blown away when people talk about banning the fundamental ideas within CRT while we're supposed to be upholding UNDRIP and the TRC's calls to actions. How the hell are we supposed to teach our students about why so many Indigenous nations are struggling with suicide and addiction, why their children are being stolen into foster care at an unprecedented rate, and so many reserves don't have clean drinking water if we can't criticize the building blocks of this Great Nation?
I am actually curious. I haven't read much on the topic, so please enlighten me. Why do we have to focus on them being indigenous? Seriously. If every man is an individual, and therefore races do not exist, then why do we need to think of this in regard to race? When there are many reasons for all the things you have said, to only focus on the historical context is stupid. Not every indigenous person is the same, not everyone thinks the same, not everyone has the same point of view on things. To say that the reason some indigenous people are committing suicide, or getting addicted, or their children are being taken into foster care, or don't have clean drinking water is all because historically the Canadian government has been against the Indians seems to be very stupid to me.
I find it ironic that conservatives say CRT is racist towards whites even though it actually benefits them by proving the point that poor whites face many similar systemic barriers to blacks. They just assume that it bashes white people and fosters victim mentality all while making white people have victim mentality.
What about during the study of WW2? Why not study the history of an indigenous fighting force in your Canada? I am sorry, I do not know the name of any units. Why not invite an indigenous veteran to speak to your students? That would touch on plenty of those topics you are looking for, without triggering those problems because it is history, and tie to either D Day, VE Day, or VJ Day. I am not being sarcastic, I ask these, because I am a Kiwi ANZAC, and have uncles fought in the Maori Battalion. Many teachers in my nation did this; we had a visit from a Maori Battalion veteran. We also had three women from Japan and China and Poland that lived through that war visit my school.
@@LordBlk Yes, as Maori whom live with their cultural rights expects to be done, and is their right to do. The West in a constant mess, is because it abandoned the group rights for individual ones, instead of doing a mix of both needs. Just look at Gaza for how bad that can get, which took 75 years to get to, and after a British Lord without his Monarch's consent. Which he was required by law at the time to get started it. Sound familiar? A certain Tony Blair while as UK PM did similar things with Iraq 20 years ago, and in front of our own faces to boot. These laws exist for a reason, and we are witnessing with Gaza now what the world will turn into if any nations are not punished when they break them. UNDRIP is a way to prevent internal problems from causing law breaking on the national scale.
I felt the same way that you felt about when CRT became a buzzword when Patriarchy and Toxic Masculinity first came up as ones. Now you see people on both sides fundamentally misunderstanding what both of those concepts are actually talking about and using them as a weapon to attack people they don't like. When I learned about those concepts in college they were feminist theories that were up for debate and criticism, a perspective lens to view certain issues through. Now people talk about patriarchy like it's a secret cabal of evil men and toxic masculinity as men naturally being jerks. That's NOT what those theories are about but now the concepts are mired down in the culture war you can't actually talk about what those theories are actually discussing.
I'd love to see a more in depth analysis/discussion of Bell. I've watched a ton of video explainers on CRT and I haven't seen a single one discuss Bell's most interesting (to me!) and controversial claim: That racism is a permanent feature of America. There is so much that could be unpacked with this statement. I also see everyone covering this topic fail to review how CRT is very popular in the field of education and the reasons why that might be. I'd love to see more if you wanted to cover this topic more.
As far as criticisms of the current legal system, I think utilizing restorative and transformative justice is at least one possible improvement. I would be very curious about a video on this 😮❤
(っ◔◡◔)っ A man sits in a prison cell. "This is not justice," he says. His cellmate laughs, "Well, they keep saying it is." "Well it isn't." "Then what is it?" His cellmate asks, intrigued. The man pauses. Then, "Vengeance," he states simply. "Exactly," came the immediate reply. "That is what it always was. This society never cared about rehabilitating people, or better yet, making it so they don't even need to be rehabilitated in the first place. No. They crave the catharsis of vengeance. Feels good, but it doesn't actually solve anything." "A-are you saying punishment doesn't work?" the man asks, incredulous. "No, it doesn't. It gives the illusion that it works, for a while, because it elicits a temporary compliance through fear, but not genuine desire to be better. Punishment, you see, is predicated on fear, but loyalty born of fear will stab you in the back the moment someone can offer more fear. "You see, fear is fickle. Love is true loyalty. People will both kill and die for love, but not for fear. For fear, they will only kill. They will never sacrifice themselves for it, because fear is self preservation." "Oh, yeah? Watch your family get murdered, and then tell me you don't believe in punishment." "Well, of course, I'd probably be so struck with grief and rage that I'd want to dish out the punishment myself. Maybe I'd torture them for as long as possible before brutally killing them, but what does it say about your argument when I have to be severely emotionally compromised to agree with it? "In the present, you see, while all my mental faculties are lucid, I'm telling you that punishment is vengeance, and vengeance does not solve problems. It perpetuates them." "I-if this kind of punishment doesn't work, then why do they do it?" "You know, this is the third time I've been back in prison. Each offense was more serious than the previous. The first time I got out, I could not make any money. Had that stigma of being an ex-con. I made a lot of connections in here, so I had options, but they were all illegal. "You think they don't know what they're doing? If they were trying to end crime, sending people off to the goddamn criminal college and then preventing them from finding honest work is just about the worst way to do it. But you know what? I bet it feels real good to throw someone in here. A culture of vengeance." "You think they don't solve the problem, on purpose?" His cellmate laughs again. "They know how to stop it: education, opportunity, prosperity. There's clear cut examples that show how to actually eliminate crime. So, what's the logical reason they don't take those clear cut uncontroversial steps? "Poverty is not a bug, it's a feature. Without us serfs, their system is unsustainable. They prop up the exceptions to the rule, so that they can blame us for our failure to succeed in a system that works against us. Every. Step. Of the way. They need it to be this way, so that they can hoard success. "They rig the game and call it a fair competition, a meritocracy. When, in actuality, a meritocracy is the last thing they want. The losers don't even get what they need to survive, while the winners take *everything*. "Is that justice? Meritocracy," he laughs. m.ua-cam.com/video/LX2VeWumRQ8/v-deo.html
@@AllYourBaseRBelong2Us The stated point of the prison system is twofold. Punishment, yes, but also behavior reform. But even those who finish their sentence are shunned by most employers and often lose many of their constitutional rights. Yes, they may have committed some heinous act, but to assume that they cannot regret or change, even after they have supposedly paid their societal debt, is to deny half of the purpose of the system. It's obvious that you, for whatever reason, consider criminals, even reformed ones, to be something less than human. And that fact alone is just incredibly ironic considering the empathy that you lack is, in my opinion, the most important part of being human. I do hope you can see a therapist about your burgeoning sociopathy before it causes problems for those who care about you.
You avoid the question and resort to some internet "tough guy" act wrapped in crazy internet moralism. Once again, why should society do right by those who have done serious wrong? I'm not talking about kids with dime bags or two spliffs, I'm talking about those that have committed serious property and violent crimes. Our prison system isn't ideal, but it is the primary responsibility of the criminal to reform themselves. It's not society's fault. It's theirs. Most people in jail are there because they took something valuable from someone else or they hurt someone else. They are not victims. I suggest your own morality in order. As for being a sociopath, you project.
@@AllYourBaseRBelong2Us society needs to support criminals because they're a part of the society. if you outcast them, that doesn't mean they dont exist anymore. they still exist, just away from you. even from a self serving perspective, which is fine to have and doesn't prove that anyone lacks empathy, you're shooting yourself in the foot when you don't help the 'bad apples' in their journey of rehabilitation. keeping people who are a part of the society away from the society is cumbersome and expensive. you cant just insutitutionalize people indefinitely and unlimitedly because you cant afford to do that. and when these people finally come back into the society, not reformed, but instead with an incentive to do more harm, more harm happens to the society and in turn more harm happens to you. not helping the collective health of the society harms everyone in the society. there are many other reasons that rehabilitation is important for all regardless of how 'bad' they are but people can disagree based on their moral standing. however, self preservation, is correct to almost all and therefore is the best reason who people should care about criminals
Glad I waited til my brain was ready for this. 1. I often wonder why people end up doing what they do. This video was a hell of an insight into why you became a lawyer. You know, besides the money (/joke). You carry a confident passion into this subject and I can see how it both vibes with and influences your personality. It's really awesome to see. 2. This was the explanation I needed for CRT. I needed it applied to history and actual thought and cases. This is both clarifying and frustrating when it comes to understanding the discussions and current events around it. Thank you for that. 3. "Legal parties". Psst. What an intentional vaguery; you played DnD with a bunch of law nerds. 4. Dais IS better than pedestal; THANK YOU! 5. Your shot composition and lighting/color in this are spot on. Really love watching you hone the background skills alo g woth your actual essays. This video was really good, dude. Damn fine work.
And this is why it's so important to teach the history of race in America. The present cannot be understood without the context of the past. It is impossible to understand America's past without talking about race.
Loved the video! Thanks for all the heart and effort you put into it. If someone without a law degree wanted to dive deeper into the historical context of Bell and Crenshaw, do you have any book recs to check out?
This is not intended to contradict you. I used to work at the GM factory in Arlington, TX. We had a night shift janitor (at that time one of the most desirable jobs) who had been at the plant since 2 years after the plant opened in 1954. He was a person of color who I would describe as light-skinned black. He was THE most connected person I ever talked to in the plant. He told me about stuff months before I heard it from anyone else. I'd sure like to talk to him about those layoffs you mentioned. ---- Edit to add a more substantive thought: I feel like every social theory has a strong form and a weak form - does X *cause* Y or does X *influence* Y. The strong form attracts more discourse, and much stronger feelings, but the weak form has stronger evidence and is easier to understand and talk about. I find this dynamic very interesting.
This was amazing, and outrageous. I had no idea things were so ludicrous after Brown VS BOE, and didn’t have any idea how deep this racism crap continued at such a high level. This was eye opening on so many levels
It's more like it used emotional appeal to get you worked up about it--there is much less logic in this video than you might think, if you look at it again with a clear head. It's mostly appeal to authority and emotion.
I do not see your assertion at all. Emotion can be used, for effect, as appropriate, per the subject matter. This explainer, a primer, presents a history, from a capable perspective. It isn't reasonable, for human beings, to just ignore the real experiences and ideas of other people, especially as their perspective seeks to be heard. It's really so effortless, even compelling, to just listen.
On the point of chapter 7: Anyone who tells you that any idea is forbidden knowledge should be approached with severe skepticism. Knowledge and ideas are context and forbidding knowledge is forbidding context.
I was in grad school in the early-mid 90s when social/cultural history was exploding and lines were drawn between the old and new school. CRT was alive there but grew out of the history not the law. A number of us were teaching this then. It wasn’t called CRT, none of us were aware of that, for us it was just historical facts.
I'm in awe at the depth and breadth of the research and knowledge you packed into this. (And quite efficiently as well!) Absolutely amazing work, extremely informative.
I'm white, but when I learned of the history if slavery in the us, at no point did I feel personally distressed. I was disappointed in my heritage, but I saw the end of slavery as the correct direction. I can't relate to anyone feel distressed over learning about slavery.
Just to note - Homer wasnt chosen because his light skin would garner sympathy. He was chosen because a white passing black man was needed to get on the train in the whites only section, thus to create the arrest and case.
I have been looking forward to this video, and you have gone so far above and beyond my wildest expectations. Thank you so much for the work it took to put this together. Fantastic video, and fantastic resource!
I’m very conservative, but I’ve learned to catch myself with these types of issues I was against this without knowing anything about it except thinking it was an neo-Marxist idea sure it has Marxist theory in it but it’s much more complicated than I thought
From chapter 4, the courts forcing schools to be equal is NOT incrementalism or gradual lol. Why would there not be retaliation against that as well? Why would that not also trigger people trying to leave and work around the public school system exactly like integration did? Seems like that needs a whole lot more explanation.
Bell's idea was to create a system that would resist resistance and provide equity while allowing room for segregationist sensibilities. But to that point, you have a point. It isn't the most gradual approach. You would need to read the book to get the full story, and i tried to convey the reasoning in a bite sized chuck, but you lose things when you condense them. On the other hand, this ties back to my issue of the lack of solutions. like i said in the video, neither the subject matter nor the people who wrote about it are above criticism. But having a criticism is a normal part of the academic world.
Glad to finally have this. Just frustrated with anti SJW people who complain about critical race theory, or assume it as result of “bad works” in pop culture community (at least in their opinions based disappointing works made or appeal to multicultural, like say…like say focusing on Gabby Rivera’s America Chavez while ignoring Coates’ Black Panther.) Like Cosmic Book News, Clownfish TV, Bounding Into Comics, and Quartering. Even worse that it seems to find appeal among non Americans, especially pop culture nerd community.
This is probably one of the best CRT videos I've seen, and that it really goes into the history and context of it while being critical of its shortcomings, yet not being dismissive of its goals. The one thing it doesn't seem to address is the ostensible roots in Marxist theory which are noted in other content, and I would be interested to see your take on that aspect of its development, if that's a thing
The conclusion is beautiful. A love of the United States cannot be complete if we only love the surface stuff and refuse to look at the ways we fall short of the ideals of our founding documents.
to the point you made about it being challenging to imagine a system beyond lawyers and legal representation-- restorative and transformative justice models DO imagine a more equitable way to problem solve interpersonal harm done within society; highly encourage you to research these!!
Worth the wait for a new video! Your table must be so much fun to play at considering your depth of thought and emotional range. Thanks for such a deep and through discussion of this topic.
Gotta say I'm disappointed, in UA-cam, for not bringing me here sooner. Found my way from the video with hoot (ttrpgs and also exploration of law topics? Sign me up!) And all I can really say is that I'm glad to have found your content, this thoroughness makes my autistic brain very happy. Looking forward to watching more of the library here!
The argument that meritocracy is racist simply because it lacks consideration for the fact that people have different starting points is quite a stretch. You can easily say it doesn’t do anything to help people with less fortunate starting points. You can say it serves most efficiently to make the rich richer, and maintain - without improving - the working class. You can even say it teaches the lower classes to work harder under the impression that a reward is to be had, only for certain other realities to prevent such achievement, thus milking the less fortunate dry. Or you can even say that no matter what systems might be in place, and no matter what sick things humanity inflicts upon itself, and separate from any plans or intentions, meritocracy prevails as a spiritual concept. But to take the obvious truth that people have different starting points, and to boil that down to purely a race issue, is cognitively anemic and MORE racist than how you describe meritocracy. Meritocracy might be surrounded by systemic racism, wether intentional or unintentional (I like how you pointed that out), and thus may be linkable to outcomes that are unequal seemingly on the basis of race alone, but this does not mean that meritocracy itself has to change. Meritocracy as a general concept is irrefutably good. I’m not saying that it’s possible to build a society on the tenets of meritocracy alone. There can be no strictly meritocratic society. But I am proudly stating that selecting those involved in a plan, when it’s possible, selecting based on merit is fundamentally the right thing to do. A collective understanding of this provides impetus to the society on multiple fronts. Calling meritocracy itself racist, even if it’s been dishonestly cited as an excuse for decisions made more based on race rather than merit, is like saying a framing hammer was designed to fracture someone else’s big toe. Though it might be useful for such morally detestable acts, that is no refute of the hammer’s immense value when used as intended, in good faith, etc. That exact same hammer built your house.
48:55 This comes from the way people online throw words around without ever explaining what they actually mean, at least in my case. Intersectionality is a much more specific thing than the compound words convey, and when I heard of it I thought it's about how you are all the things that make up who you are all at once. So for instance you're not black in this situation, gay in that situation and neurodiverse in that situation; you're every part of yourself in every moment. It took several more months until I finally ran into someone that A) brought up intersectionality, and B) could actually be bothered to explain what it means that I finally realised I'd had completely wrong idea of what it means. Now, if I was more actively politically engaged I'd probably have looked it up and realised sooner, but that's where this kind of in-talking (you know, as in talking to an in-group; spreaching to the choir, as they say) behaviour becomes a problem; most people _aren't_ that actively politically engaged, and if people don't explain the terms they're throwing around as if every person on the planet knows exactly what they mean, a lot of people are gonna get the wrong idea.
2 things. 1) On the racism in the past that used the exact same arguments as the modern day school choice/ voucher systems advocates, just because the arguments are essentially the same, I think its quite unfair to claim the motive for this is as well the same by merely associating it with an argument that some racists used before. This reminds me of the argument. Hitler owned a dog, u own a dog, u are Hitler analogy. However I think your argument still stands because of the fact the arguments are so identical It's hard to look at them than anything other than the ones that came before it Point is, the motive and intent can be completely different morally and nowadays let's not forget alot of Black ppl who happen to live in dangerous low income areas want the same ability for their kid. And if they Go to a good school that happens to be all white who gives a s*** a good school is a good school. Secondly on the modern day cases in New Jersey about segregation. Again I'm not denying your arguments at all I'm simply stating something that should be held in account. Whether we like it or not self segregation is a naturally arising problem that we will face when it comes to segregation. You can take people anywhere on the map and gym and let them form groups and generally speaking similar people are going to hang out together. And that often breaks down along racial ethnic and cultural lines. So the government can make things illegal all they want but humans are still humans. And most of the time I think self segregation is just a natural way for socialization to establish, Especially when race is correlated a cultures share ideas, common themes beliefs and practices. So it's easier for ppl, for example Jewish people, to live in neighborhoods that are predominantly Jewish, especially when different languages are involved. This is a brute fact about Human nature, and while that MOSTLY UNCONCIOUS MECHANISM BECOMES CONSCIOUS ALL OF A SUDDEN, and ppl knowingly hold racist beliefs and commit racist actions, that's when it's a different ball game.
Very happy that you took the time to voice something on Rosens channel so that I could find out about you. For the record when you talked about interest convergence and how it can feel conspiratorial because of a sort of causal/correlative relationship you could have referenced the laws furthered under FDR during the Second World War and the US' eventual entry into the pacific. If you are unfamiliar, slavery was still not properly combatted (for lack of a better way to express how I feel about what was going on) but suddenly at a federal level they began to crack down on it as it was believed that the US still being so blatantly racist or non-liberal would allow for the enemy to target minority groups with propaganda. This was of course an actual address that FDR gave, so, not quite as far removed as your example. It might be hard to say "Yes, that's why it happened" but it has happened before in a very similar way and circumstance.
I had watched your video about mixed race and DnD a couple weeks ago after seeing it mentioned in another video. I assumed by the quality that you were a much bigger channel, and were in the 10’s of thousands of subscribers at this point. Seeing how relatively low your subscribers are compared to your content’s quality. I hope you get the subscribers you deserve.
Thank you for making such a fantastic video once again. I don't have an essay to write for you this time; I simply don't have the knowledge or experience to really add anything to a 'conversation' about something like this.
Can you comment further on how you believe school choice is racist in 2023. Also, where are you with race based affirmative action? I learned a lot. Don’t agree with everything you said, but definitely appreciate your video
Those proposals for achieving school equality sound like no child left behind on steroids. Huge federal oversight with rigid standards on outcomes seems like a recipe for forcing curricula into measurable systems that inevitably strip teachers of their agency to do their job. I don’t disagree with the overall argument that maybe things would have been better if the legal emphasis after Brown were on equality - especially equality of funding. But man, that description of the judiciary deciding whether or not schools met the same “academic standards” made my skin crawl.
The first creation account of Genesis shows time relative to the actions of Elohim which to be clear is presented as being beyond our universe (ie. the heavans and the the earth), and therefore it is wrong to assume that the flow of time beyond our universe is the same as the flow of time within our universe. In the course of a week, an author could build his own world, but that does not tell us how much time actually passed in said world, and the Bible's usage of the word "Yom," which literally means day can also mean "age" or "era." So, what if creation took seven days from the point of view of Elohim? Does it mean that it took seven days from the point of view of created beings? No. And as for the story of Adam (the original high priest) being placed in Gan Eden in about 5500 BC, but nowhere does the Bible say that this Adam was the first man, rather the Biblical symbolism when compared to other Near Eastern Religions seems to suggest that Adam was the high priest of YHWH Elohim, so I think it is more likely that Yahwism began in about 5500 BC, not the universe itself, mind you, I am using the dating of the Greek Septuagint, as it is the version which I have done the calculations for.
The things you say make sense but then I hear the Piano and I can't help but feel like you're trying to manipulate my emotions into to being more agreeable with you, it's really off putting tbh with you
Lol, I think it sounds nice, and he probably liked it. I think he is smart enough to manipulate ppl thru music, I just don't think he's doing that, bc he's not a malevolent ne'er-do-well.
There's a perplexing problem here that I would love someone else to weigh in on. This version of intersectionality in terms of legal consequences in loopholes is very fascinating. But there's an important caveat here and that being it could have gone the other way. If they're explicit racist goal was to further empower white men. It would actually make more sense for them to hire black women than to hire both black men and White women. This is because if they hired a single black woman it would have hit the quota for both groups and saved a job for a white man. If the primary goal of this oppression was to safeguard fellow white men why did they not do this? It does support the intersectionality of discrimination as it would correlate a black woman having both blackness and femaleness would result in higher discrimination but it undermines it as an idea of oppression for the sake of benefit for white men or the intersectionality of privilege. I don't disagree or agree with these paradigms I'm just wondering if anyone has any good input on this topic.
This video has been sorely needed for a long time. I can only imagine how much time and effort went into its research and production, but it really paid off. Thank you for helping us sort through the noise to better understand the history and nuances of such a complex topic.
Thank you. This was an excellent summary of a complicated subject. I have one small complaint: please tone down the background music. It is so loud it made it difficult for me to concentrate on what you were saying.
This is one of the best channels I have found recently. So much good talk about law and politics both in real life and in fiction. I love how you focus on how things are rather than what they should be in so many cases-- it provides such a unique lense rather than the often repetitive moral arguments. And how even when doing that and addressing the more political reasons for a conflict it can still address a moral idea of what is right without even having to say it-- only having to prove it so clearly as this channel does.
I came here from the Zoe bee post, and I find some nerdy American Korean? Good, I got a jar of black miso paste I got cause I needed miso for ramen and picked all the vegetarian options in the shop, can you give me ideas on what to do it with? Something delicious and vegetarian, I been mixing it with mushed potatoes so far, highly recommend P.s. after watching it all, especially with your point on capitalism etc, letting others talk, etc, As a trans Jewish atheist woman, who is anarcho communist, that wouldn't put anyone on a pedestal cause we all humans and screw up. You got a new sub
Hey, thank you for taking the time to make this video (and to your child for the wall art). Subscribed and looking forward to the rest of your content!
Yeah a lot of people and companies did some racist shit. That's terrible. However many of the solutions proposed today seem to be "you need 50% women, 50% black and 50% black women to be working for your company or the company is racist!". Even if the company is in a field that is 10% or less women. I also don't see the point of teaching the fact that GM didn't hire black women till after 1970 to high schoolers when likely the majority couldn't even tell you what CENTURY the civil war or revolutionary wars took place in after they graduate.
1:05:04 You say that meritocracy is racist, because it fails to account that all don't start equal. I agree that meritocracy doesn't account for starting position, but I mostly disagree regarding racism. My position on race is that it's a silly thing to think about in the context of merit. There might be some statistical correlation between certain skin colors and performance at certain tasks, but just looking at someone's skin color is not a good test of such potential because there are much better tests that look at traits with much stronger correlations. My position on equality of opportunity is that there is no equality of opportunity without equality of outcome, and my position on equality is that it is NOT desirable. People who have better behavior deserve better outcomes and therefore better opportunities for themselves and their children. Equity is bad because society's job is not fairness, it is incentive. It seems to me that when you talk of meritocracy here, that you don't mean intelligent meritocracy, you mean stupid meritocracy. That is, people who use bad traits to determine who has merit and who doesn't. But the thing is, meritocracy has layers. The people with power who choose poorly will, or at least should, compete against other people with power who choose wisely, and if racism truly is stupid (my hypothesis is that it is) then those who engage in racism will underperform economically. I understand that racists often don't care about being right, they just care about being racist, and therefore they often take advantage of opportunities to fake stupidity in any system that upholds personal choice. This applies to meritocracy in much the same way that it was used in the "school choice" example that you presented earlier. But that's not really meritocracy, that's racism in meritocracy's clothing.
I think the problem with arguments for meritocracy is that they are too individualistic to be applicable to anything meaningful. Meritocracy focuses only on an individual and doesn't account for the social systems we all have and navigate. Those systems can be biased for or against individuals. Society is a system we design to improve our access to food, shelter and mating. It is a system we continually revise and redesign to suit our needs and wants.
@@doodleprophet "too individualistic to be applicable to anything useful." I fiercely disagree. The human animal does not have the ability to communicate telepathically. Consciousness is a strictly individual affair, and that is not a negotiable, it is a biological fact. It is immutable. So the proper method of society is to harness individualism to achieve its goals. That is, I am saying individualism is always the means, not that it is the ends; it's like a hydroelectric power plant uses the flow of water as the means, but the ends are totally separate. Throughout history there have been many stupid theories of society, and what they all have in common is people just assuming that other people have the same ideology that they do, and that people will not act individualistically. Such societies always fail, because as Francis Bacon said, nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. You cannot fix the problem of individualism by simply handwaving it away and pretending it doesn't exist. There is only one way to make people as a whole behave altruistically, and it is to make it so that the self-interested course of action and the altruistic course of action are so similar as to be potentially either. The end goal of an incentive system is to convince individuals that what is best for society is best for them individually.
@@williamking7800 Sounds like you are describing the Critical Race Theory topic of "Interest Convergence" You should try watching this video in full. The creator did a great job covering the legal history and events that lead to Derrick Bell making CRT to understand why civil rights progress encounters such resistance and backlash throughout American history.
@@doodleprophet Regarding interest convergence, I mostly agree with it, but it's ultimately a product of critical theory and therefore places undue emphasis on an oppressor/oppressed dynamic. (I disagree with critical race theory because I disagree upon critical theory, in which it is based. I haven't encountered any original ideas of Bell that I disagree with, but I disagree with many of the ideas he borrowed from Marcuse. Interest convergence is based on a very simple idea which is much older than critical race theory, specifically: that the worse the status quo looks, the more popular alternatives to the status quo look. If the status quo seems to be humming along fine, people tend to approve of it, and when it seems to be under some kind of existential threat, sensible people consider making incremental changes. All Bell did was take this very basic concept and give it a critical theory paint job. Don't get me wrong, it's a valid idea at its core, but it's borderline common sense.
@@williamking7800 James Lindsey will rot your brain. I don't think you've engaged with any of Herbert Marcuse's works or Derrick Bell's to be able to say what ideas were borrowed. I'm just hearing the thought stopper: CRT is CT which comes from the Frankfurt School which comes from Marx therefore it's bad. Critical Race Theory is constitutional history. You cannot teach or understand the US Constitution without Critical Race Theory If you listened to the video where the creator discusses criticisms of CRT, one of them is that CRT doesn't prescribe solutions. It mainly exists to describe and understand the problem of racism and resistance to civil rights progress. I don't think your claim of existential threat forcing sensible people to consider making incremental changes matches with American history. The first Civil Rights Era was radical and revolutionary change, not incremental
Hello, I discovered your channel from WatchCrunch. I am the most recent argument in favor of the Farer. I still think it is perfect for this suit 😁 This video is so informative and places the information in some of the least biased format I have seen.
My wife just took a class on CRT for her PhD. I never took that class in law school, but I did learn other similar lenses and how to apply them, so while I'm not specifically well versed in CRT, I do understand generallly what it is about.
The sheer quality alone is impressive, but your breakdown of CRT, especially with your experience, was just a solid and informative watch. Great job as always!
Some of your roleplaying videos have been popping up in my feed over the last couple weeks, and I've thoroughly enjoyed them. This video, however, earned my subscription. Outstanding video, sir. Thank you.
i feel like if we could somehow get every american to watch this and listen we could solve half our problems overnight. shame so few are seeing it :/ regardless, good work
I love the video!!!! So informative and great to watch. As someone who is right leaning, I do see what your are saying about it the banning of CRT is really being used as a way to stop criticism of the US. However, I don’t think people are completely making everything up about some people on the left taking these ideas into weird conclusions and confusing the public. The reason the public became confused was because of these terrible situations with left wing weirdos. I understand that these weirdos are not the responsibility of you or any CRT creator to speak for. However, they do claim to be CRT proponents and that damages the conversation. When we have people saying that only whites can be racist (and some teachers have been caught saying things of that nature in their class), that unless we have absolutely equal outcomes then there is proof of racism, or people behaving on mainstream news outlets and through academia as if whites can never be victims of anything, it hurts the conversation. The left needs to expel these people who say these types of things. Call them out and get rid of them. Because they have hurt the conversation on what the true CRT is and people might be more open to it, if they knew that it wasn’t just a way of condemning whites as sinners and POC as saints. To be fair I do think that this is starting to happen, Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks has had a few takes where she discusses weird ideas in her own side and calls it out. I think if that area is cleaned up more and we can get people less angry, than maybe we can have real conversations. Because people on the right feel that CRT being banned is banning all the stuff that I mentioned above, not this stuff about legal theories or whatever.
1) Would it solve "no discrimination based on race, sex, religion, gender, etc" if we were to add "or due to any combination thereof" to the end of it? Or is that Pandora's box of stretch arguments? I could see that causing significant shifts but I can't see anything high res. 2) I agree, free speech dictates that CRT concepts being taught in classes should be fair game if those concepts are actually relevant to the students. (Which based on the context given in this video, it would only really apply in like an AP Government class) Is there anything to be said though for parent choice in what's taught in their children's schools? Or has that authority been surrendered to the DoE?
I am really liking this video. I don't agree with everything you say, but I really appreciate where you are coming from and all of the evidence you are using in our points. The thing I liked the most about this video was the explanation of intersectionality and of activism done with law purposes. This was as helpful as the episodes of Code Switch/Notes from America podcasts explaining activism terms. Both these legal and activism terms are often tossed around in the pop culture way that I'm learning is not why they were invented, and learning the history/original intent clarifies a big deal of the online pop culture conflict, for me. Great video, subscribed and looking forward to the next video!
I found this video because I searched, "Why critical race theory is bad." I like to hear the other side's opinion, especially since people in my idealogical bubble tend to have no idea. "Because they're stupid and racist" cannot always be true. Somewhere along the line, someone with a different opinion from me has an argument that /sounds/ logical and is worth understanding. I thought I was going to hate this video because I don't like the title. It grabs my attention, but I know LegalKimchi does not *actually* think everyone is wrong about CRT. I learned so much in this video, and I wish everyone would take the time to listen to the whole thing. In the meantime, I'll just have to be best in summarizing it for people who want to learn more. Thank you!
I think it is important to remember the times we are living in. Socialism is on the rise and unionization is on the rise and the neo-liberal ideology of "personal responsibility" has been discredited in the eyes of many. The crackdown on 'CRT' is more about maintaining elite power and trying to suppress critical thinking and spread pro-American propaganda.
My best attempt at an improvement in the situation of the poor getting shafted in criminal court is to mandate that public defenders offices be granted a budget *no less than* their district attorney counterparts. This at least puts the PDs on a *theoretically* equal footing with the DA's office on a financial level. Probably not sufficient to solve the problem, but it should at least mitigate it.
I attended a private school until my second year of highschool. In the entire duration of my stay there, we had _two_ black students, and on of them only for highschool. I don't think there was even one latino, and we only had asian atudents because of an exchange program with South Korea, for some reason. Segregation is still alive and well, people.
Thank you so much for taking the time to put all this information together and present it in such a professional and accessible way. I'm definitely saving this for future reference. Keep up the good work :)
I never liked calling Koramatzu one of the worst decisions. It established the strict scritiny test. It formed the foindation of civil rights litigation for the next century. It is criticized because it applied that test in the worst possible way, to allow the internment of Japanese Americans. So in the facts, it was horrific, but on the law it was fantastic. That mixed legacy makes it hard for me to compare it to cases like Dredd Scott.
Derek Bell's ideas remind me of a point made by Rene Girard, law can't secure a society that is immune to conflict and scapegoating. What it does do is create new layers of deceit and hypocrisy.
Probably a naive question, but doesn't a "legal realism" approach move the privilege/burden of legal revision to singular judges effectively removing the same from the relevant legislature? The uninitiated pedant in me cringes at that, but the pragmatic adult also in head can see the value.
Hi, 2nd time watcher, first time commenter. Love this video. I absolutely believe that the foundations of this should be taught so we can build, rebuild, iterate, discuss etc. like we do with all social sciences, to help us understand the frameworks of our society (I'm given to understand we live in one 😱)
I really enjoyed the video, but your section on your own criticisms of CRT - a refreshingly thoughtful consideration of its potential shortcomings - is what earned you a subscriber. Looking forward to more!
Thank you very much for this video and the work you put into learning all of what you presented here, throughout your life. As a non-american it's tough to grasp the nuances, or some times even the plain facts, of race and racism in the US. Having a foundation in History I find it somewhat easier than some other people I've talked to about it in my country, but I really needed your presentation and didn't even know it until I heard it.
Great video! Learnt a lot about the historical context, people kept talking about CRT having "legal origins" but never went into any depth. Not as much a fan of the opinion section of the video, I feel like it takes away from the (more neutral) educational aspect. What I find funny though is despite disagreeing with a lot of your opinion, I agree with the policy you arrived at. (teaching CRT maybe a bit in high school and definitely in Uni)
Thanks. Great talk. I don't agree with you about everything and think you give a few pat answers to some questions that might deserve more serious consideration, but overall I agree with you and feel a great sympathy for anyone who can say they are not in complete lockstep with what has come to be called CRT. Because in this day of "You are either FOR us, or AGAINST us!" (especially given the unfortunate intersection of social justice and narcissism that has bloomed in recent years) even saying such a thing invites vitriol - for some of us more than others. This wasn't your first video that I liked, and I'm sure it won't be your last. Thanks again.
thanks for an important history lesson LK, i was wondering about this new controversy. Yes we are all horrified by the American arc of history wondering, "where is this going...?" Please keep explaining so we can expand our consciousness the way education has expanded yours, sensei - i bow to you
No CRT in schools! Flat screens have been the norm for decades now. It's not just that they take up less space and have higher resolution. They also use less energy and they're cheaper than the old bulky monitors were. Even if someone somewhere still has a working monitor with a Cathode Ray Tube in it, it probably has cost more in electricity, cumulatively, than it would have cost to replace it twenty years ago, just once.
Everyone using a computer should also be using 8086 or newer architecture, not the old Virtual Adress eXtension system from Digital Equipment Corporation. And why was there all that noise a few years ago about the Bureau of Land Management?
What do you even think crt is?
@@KingZNIN The CRT that I'm talking about, as I said, stands for Cathode Ray Tubes. They're how television sets used to work.
Of course, there would be no humor in talking about Cathode Ray Tubes, if not for the fact that they share an initialism with Critical Race Theory.
I got to "flat screens" on the top line and burst out laughing because I am actually old enough to remember the cathode ray tube tvs.
You got me laughing but also fuck you I feel old now =[
This was my take for years until I found out that "CRT" means something mich different now than it used to.
The fact that motorhomes are treated different from non-motorhomes is incredibly suspicious
People who call themselves "Marxist" aren't literally thinking that Marx's works is beyond reproach, they are calling themselves that because they are using Marx's ideas as a jumping off point for their own ideas, arguments and politics. It's a school of thought, not a religion. Any Marxist is free to ignore or outright reject portions of Marx's works, and most do.
Yep. To your point, I know very few serious Marxists who aren't critical of Marx and his limitations. Marxism is simply historical materialism, which rejects any "great man" theory of history, even if that man is Marx.
I like how Lukacs puts it:
"Admit for the sake of argument that all of the particular affirmations of Marx have been shown to be factually inaccurate by modern scholarship. A serious Marxist can recognize all this new evidence, reject all of the particular theses of Marx, and yet not be forced for an instant to renounce his Marxist orthodoxy. For orthodox Marxism does not mean an uncritical acceptance of the results of Marx’ research, it is not the exegeses of a “sacred book” or “faith” in this or that thesis. In Marxism, orthodoxy refers solely and exclusively to the question of *method*."
I mean some Marxists ABSOLUTELY treat his word as good for sure. But that's kind of the case with any kind of movement with a father type figure. Its still something we should acknowledge because its not like its a completely miniscule amount and god knows they really do quote the Communist Manifesto like its a bible.
I'd say most of them know as much about the basis and origins of "marxism" as they know about what CRT is really about!
Using Marxism as placeholder for religion sure has been tried at catastrophically attempts tho. This is the main problem with secular ideology. Humans are most likely wired in a way in witch we approach ideology in a certain way, which is the exclusion of other ideologies in favor of a monolithic system, and that's the reason that ultimately leads to the persecution and ethnic/cultural cleansing of others. Secular ideology have as much or even more death on it's conscience in't it's attempt to rid the world of theological ideology. The main issue at the core of these issues is probably a human genetic condition and this issue is unlikely to be resolved for hundreds of generations.
My own theory is that about any ideology is more or less functional, but it's our genetic predisposition and natural competitiveness that create ideological monoliths that brings us all under one system that screws it up. Marxism have functioned rather well for Vietnam and have had a massive influence several Nordic countries even tho they never fully committed to it. Capitalism as well as a vary of theocratic system have worked rather well for other states.
I don't think that's the point.
I think it's more about the emotional effect of having ideas seem so symbolically attached to a person.
But hey thats just a theory
A race theory
Thanks for watching
Tying school funding to property tax is one of the most damning things to public education.
Property tax should be illegal. It's theft. Schools should not be funded by taxpayers. They should be funded by the parents, directly.
@@SomeCanineThat would mean poor parents would have to choose between funding their kids’ school or feeding them at all. There simply would be no school for poor kids.
"Twitter is the realization of the infinite monkey theory." 😂😂 I love that ao much
well, it is all of the internet. saying, just Twitter/X is radically oversimplifying it.
1) everything about this is so good
2) oh no, why you gotta call me out like this. I have totally slipped from "conducting an intersectional analysis" to "being intersectional" and now I'm cringing at a lot of my work.
Ok but really, this was very very very good. I am another former debate kid so I am familiar with a lot of the big policy cases, but not necessarily the details behind them, and even thinking of myself as fairly well informed, I spent a ton of this video going "really!?" I think you presented this in an extremely accessible way and have really filled in a lot of gaps for me that I was unaware I had. Thank you.
Great video so far---I'm just dipping my toes into it, but already I'm engaged. I've been hesitant to talk about CRT because I realize most of the information floating around about it is bad info, and talking about something from a foundation of bad info is worse than admitting ignorance.
Okay---just finished this one up after a dinner break--I feel a good deal more enlightened.
@@andrewlustfield6079 Same here! Hope you're feeling like you understand it better :) I feel that way
Sure it is...but also nothing is wrong with admitting ignorance so most things are worse by default.
@@Sara3346
In my experience, admitting ignorance is a great place to begin--and is much better than parroting bad information. Especially when you're talking about complex issues like this one--where there is soooo much bad info out there.
Wholeheartedly agree! It's tough to learn and grow in a subject area when so much of it is just a political shouting match without much academic/intellectual dialogue. This is important information and should be talked about/handled with much more care and nuance than it is. I wish more people could humble themselves and say "hey, I don't know what I'm talking about, can you teach me" and actually listen to the experts.
Im an attorney, can confirm the 99 problems joke got me to chuckle.
Edit to add: your video touches on this when talking about the Amicus Briefs, but isn't explicit about it. I think a more useful interpretation of Interest Convergence is that it is a useful tool for approaching policy argument. Rather than saying the courts are only making decisions the help dismantle systems of opression because another interest is benefited, it is using an argument that connects a system of opression to a larger more mainstream interest that the court (especially one without the same lived experience as a marginalized person) can latch onto.
I’ve missed of the nuances and details on this topic for YEARS. Probably doesn’t help that I’m not from the US but… thank-you. I finally feel like I’m starting to understand both what CRT actually is and what everyone talking about it seems to think it is. Hecking excellent video!
I do think the people doing the fearmongering know. Critical theory is a threat to conservatism as it presents the present as just a moment in time and not a sacred state that must be protected.
This was great at giving a more robust understanding of what CRT *actually* says and what it would be used for. It's far more a diagnostic tool than any kind of overt philosophy.
Bit of a reach, but my first thought was comparing it to the Bechdel test. Like, no individual movie failing the Bechdel test tells you anything about the movie. But when broad swaths of movies fail it, it kinda says there's a problem with the culture of movies.
Likewise, CRT is more about asking "Is the problem the output, or is the problem the system?" That critical analysis keeps turning up "yeah, it's the system" is just a diagnostic test, and a warning that it needs attention.
As a Canadian teacher candidate, I am blown away when people talk about banning the fundamental ideas within CRT while we're supposed to be upholding UNDRIP and the TRC's calls to actions. How the hell are we supposed to teach our students about why so many Indigenous nations are struggling with suicide and addiction, why their children are being stolen into foster care at an unprecedented rate, and so many reserves don't have clean drinking water if we can't criticize the building blocks of this Great Nation?
I am actually curious. I haven't read much on the topic, so please enlighten me.
Why do we have to focus on them being indigenous? Seriously. If every man is an individual, and therefore races do not exist, then why do we need to think of this in regard to race? When there are many reasons for all the things you have said, to only focus on the historical context is stupid. Not every indigenous person is the same, not everyone thinks the same, not everyone has the same point of view on things. To say that the reason some indigenous people are committing suicide, or getting addicted, or their children are being taken into foster care, or don't have clean drinking water is all because historically the Canadian government has been against the Indians seems to be very stupid to me.
I find it ironic that conservatives say CRT is racist towards whites even though it actually benefits them by proving the point that poor whites face many similar systemic barriers to blacks. They just assume that it bashes white people and fosters victim mentality all while making white people have victim mentality.
What about during the study of WW2?
Why not study the history of an indigenous fighting force in your Canada? I am sorry, I do not know the name of any units.
Why not invite an indigenous veteran to speak to your students?
That would touch on plenty of those topics you are looking for, without triggering those problems because it is history, and tie to either D Day, VE Day, or VJ Day.
I am not being sarcastic, I ask these, because I am a Kiwi ANZAC, and have uncles fought in the Maori Battalion.
Many teachers in my nation did this; we had a visit from a Maori Battalion veteran. We also had three women from Japan and China and Poland that lived through that war visit my school.
That's cause undrip is about group rights and is opposed to individual rights
@@LordBlk Yes, as Maori whom live with their cultural rights expects to be done, and is their right to do.
The West in a constant mess, is because it abandoned the group rights for individual ones, instead of doing a mix of both needs.
Just look at Gaza for how bad that can get, which took 75 years to get to, and after a British Lord without his Monarch's consent. Which he was required by law at the time to get started it.
Sound familiar? A certain Tony Blair while as UK PM did similar things with Iraq 20 years ago, and in front of our own faces to boot.
These laws exist for a reason, and we are witnessing with Gaza now what the world will turn into if any nations are not punished when they break them. UNDRIP is a way to prevent internal problems from causing law breaking on the national scale.
I felt the same way that you felt about when CRT became a buzzword when Patriarchy and Toxic Masculinity first came up as ones. Now you see people on both sides fundamentally misunderstanding what both of those concepts are actually talking about and using them as a weapon to attack people they don't like. When I learned about those concepts in college they were feminist theories that were up for debate and criticism, a perspective lens to view certain issues through. Now people talk about patriarchy like it's a secret cabal of evil men and toxic masculinity as men naturally being jerks. That's NOT what those theories are about but now the concepts are mired down in the culture war you can't actually talk about what those theories are actually discussing.
There’s so much information here delivered so well, I’ve learned so much ❤️
I'm glad you shared it out, I loved this!
Hey there - you - you look familiar!
I'd love to see a more in depth analysis/discussion of Bell. I've watched a ton of video explainers on CRT and I haven't seen a single one discuss Bell's most interesting (to me!) and controversial claim: That racism is a permanent feature of America. There is so much that could be unpacked with this statement. I also see everyone covering this topic fail to review how CRT is very popular in the field of education and the reasons why that might be. I'd love to see more if you wanted to cover this topic more.
"you can teach your point of view, but I could not teach mine" really hits me.
There's so much that we're not allowed to say.
As far as criticisms of the current legal system, I think utilizing restorative and transformative justice is at least one possible improvement. I would be very curious about a video on this 😮❤
(っ◔◡◔)っ
A man sits in a prison cell. "This is not justice," he says.
His cellmate laughs, "Well, they keep saying it is."
"Well it isn't."
"Then what is it?" His cellmate asks, intrigued.
The man pauses. Then, "Vengeance," he states simply.
"Exactly," came the immediate reply. "That is what it always was. This society never cared about rehabilitating people, or better yet, making it so they don't even need to be rehabilitated in the first place. No. They crave the catharsis of vengeance. Feels good, but it doesn't actually solve anything."
"A-are you saying punishment doesn't work?" the man asks, incredulous.
"No, it doesn't. It gives the illusion that it works, for a while, because it elicits a temporary compliance through fear, but not genuine desire to be better. Punishment, you see, is predicated on fear, but loyalty born of fear will stab you in the back the moment someone can offer more fear.
"You see, fear is fickle. Love is true loyalty. People will both kill and die for love, but not for fear. For fear, they will only kill. They will never sacrifice themselves for it, because fear is self preservation."
"Oh, yeah? Watch your family get murdered, and then tell me you don't believe in punishment."
"Well, of course, I'd probably be so struck with grief and rage that I'd want to dish out the punishment myself. Maybe I'd torture them for as long as possible before brutally killing them, but what does it say about your argument when I have to be severely emotionally compromised to agree with it?
"In the present, you see, while all my mental faculties are lucid, I'm telling you that punishment is vengeance, and vengeance does not solve problems. It perpetuates them."
"I-if this kind of punishment doesn't work, then why do they do it?"
"You know, this is the third time I've been back in prison. Each offense was more serious than the previous. The first time I got out, I could not make any money. Had that stigma of being an ex-con. I made a lot of connections in here, so I had options, but they were all illegal.
"You think they don't know what they're doing? If they were trying to end crime, sending people off to the goddamn criminal college and then preventing them from finding honest work is just about the worst way to do it. But you know what? I bet it feels real good to throw someone in here. A culture of vengeance."
"You think they don't solve the problem, on purpose?"
His cellmate laughs again. "They know how to stop it: education, opportunity, prosperity. There's clear cut examples that show how to actually eliminate crime. So, what's the logical reason they don't take those clear cut uncontroversial steps?
"Poverty is not a bug, it's a feature. Without us serfs, their system is unsustainable. They prop up the exceptions to the rule, so that they can blame us for our failure to succeed in a system that works against us. Every. Step. Of the way. They need it to be this way, so that they can hoard success.
"They rig the game and call it a fair competition, a meritocracy. When, in actuality, a meritocracy is the last thing they want. The losers don't even get what they need to survive, while the winners take *everything*.
"Is that justice? Meritocracy," he laughs.
m.ua-cam.com/video/LX2VeWumRQ8/v-deo.html
@@jiralishu It's a laugh worthy concept to insist that society must do right by someone who themselves have done serious wrong.
@@AllYourBaseRBelong2Us The stated point of the prison system is twofold. Punishment, yes, but also behavior reform. But even those who finish their sentence are shunned by most employers and often lose many of their constitutional rights. Yes, they may have committed some heinous act, but to assume that they cannot regret or change, even after they have supposedly paid their societal debt, is to deny half of the purpose of the system.
It's obvious that you, for whatever reason, consider criminals, even reformed ones, to be something less than human. And that fact alone is just incredibly ironic considering the empathy that you lack is, in my opinion, the most important part of being human.
I do hope you can see a therapist about your burgeoning sociopathy before it causes problems for those who care about you.
You avoid the question and resort to some internet "tough guy" act wrapped in crazy internet moralism. Once again, why should society do right by those who have done serious wrong?
I'm not talking about kids with dime bags or two spliffs, I'm talking about those that have committed serious property and violent crimes. Our prison system isn't ideal, but it is the primary responsibility of the criminal to reform themselves. It's not society's fault. It's theirs.
Most people in jail are there because they took something valuable from someone else or they hurt someone else. They are not victims.
I suggest your own morality in order. As for being a sociopath, you project.
@@AllYourBaseRBelong2Us society needs to support criminals because they're a part of the society. if you outcast them, that doesn't mean they dont exist anymore. they still exist, just away from you. even from a self serving perspective, which is fine to have and doesn't prove that anyone lacks empathy, you're shooting yourself in the foot when you don't help the 'bad apples' in their journey of rehabilitation. keeping people who are a part of the society away from the society is cumbersome and expensive. you cant just insutitutionalize people indefinitely and unlimitedly because you cant afford to do that. and when these people finally come back into the society, not reformed, but instead with an incentive to do more harm, more harm happens to the society and in turn more harm happens to you. not helping the collective health of the society harms everyone in the society. there are many other reasons that rehabilitation is important for all regardless of how 'bad' they are but people can disagree based on their moral standing. however, self preservation, is correct to almost all and therefore is the best reason who people should care about criminals
Glad I waited til my brain was ready for this.
1. I often wonder why people end up doing what they do. This video was a hell of an insight into why you became a lawyer. You know, besides the money (/joke). You carry a confident passion into this subject and I can see how it both vibes with and influences your personality. It's really awesome to see.
2. This was the explanation I needed for CRT. I needed it applied to history and actual thought and cases. This is both clarifying and frustrating when it comes to understanding the discussions and current events around it. Thank you for that.
3. "Legal parties". Psst. What an intentional vaguery; you played DnD with a bunch of law nerds.
4. Dais IS better than pedestal; THANK YOU!
5. Your shot composition and lighting/color in this are spot on. Really love watching you hone the background skills alo g woth your actual essays.
This video was really good, dude. Damn fine work.
Also, the pedant in me wants to let you know that when it comes to ants and ant colonies, it's actually 😏 a lot more nuanced than that.
And this is why it's so important to teach the history of race in America. The present cannot be understood without the context of the past. It is impossible to understand America's past without talking about race.
Loved the video! Thanks for all the heart and effort you put into it. If someone without a law degree wanted to dive deeper into the historical context of Bell and Crenshaw, do you have any book recs to check out?
This is not intended to contradict you.
I used to work at the GM factory in Arlington, TX. We had a night shift janitor (at that time one of the most desirable jobs) who had been at the plant since 2 years after the plant opened in 1954. He was a person of color who I would describe as light-skinned black. He was THE most connected person I ever talked to in the plant. He told me about stuff months before I heard it from anyone else. I'd sure like to talk to him about those layoffs you mentioned.
----
Edit to add a more substantive thought:
I feel like every social theory has a strong form and a weak form - does X *cause* Y or does X *influence* Y.
The strong form attracts more discourse, and much stronger feelings, but the weak form has stronger evidence and is easier to understand and talk about. I find this dynamic very interesting.
This was amazing, and outrageous. I had no idea things were so ludicrous after Brown VS BOE, and didn’t have any idea how deep this racism crap continued at such a high level. This was eye opening on so many levels
It's more like it used emotional appeal to get you worked up about it--there is much less logic in this video than you might think, if you look at it again with a clear head. It's mostly appeal to authority and emotion.
I do not see your assertion at all. Emotion can be used, for effect, as appropriate, per the subject matter.
This explainer, a primer, presents a history, from a capable perspective.
It isn't reasonable, for human beings, to just ignore the real experiences and ideas of other people, especially as their perspective seeks to be heard. It's really so effortless, even compelling, to just listen.
@@genossinwaabooz4373 "It's really so effortless, even compelling, to just listen." Whelp, there's your problem, ma'am!
On the point of chapter 7:
Anyone who tells you that any idea is forbidden knowledge should be approached with severe skepticism. Knowledge and ideas are context and forbidding knowledge is forbidding context.
I was in grad school in the early-mid 90s when social/cultural history was exploding and lines were drawn between the old and new school. CRT was alive there but grew out of the history not the law. A number of us were teaching this then. It wasn’t called CRT, none of us were aware of that, for us it was just historical facts.
I'm in awe at the depth and breadth of the research and knowledge you packed into this. (And quite efficiently as well!) Absolutely amazing work, extremely informative.
I'm white, but when I learned of the history if slavery in the us, at no point did I feel personally distressed. I was disappointed in my heritage, but I saw the end of slavery as the correct direction. I can't relate to anyone feel distressed over learning about slavery.
THIS SO TRUE
This is interesting, nuanced, and grounded. Well done, Mr. Kimchi.
So I saw the video thumbnail with CRT on it, and I spent 5 seconds wondering how can Chinese Remainder Theorem be wrong?
They want to ban the Chinese Remainder Theorem? How will I be able to express gcd(a,b) as n*a + m*b now?
Just to note - Homer wasnt chosen because his light skin would garner sympathy. He was chosen because a white passing black man was needed to get on the train in the whites only section, thus to create the arrest and case.
I have been looking forward to this video, and you have gone so far above and beyond my wildest expectations. Thank you so much for the work it took to put this together. Fantastic video, and fantastic resource!
I’m very conservative, but I’ve learned to catch myself with these types of issues I was against this without knowing anything about it except thinking it was an neo-Marxist idea sure it has Marxist theory in it but it’s much more complicated than I thought
From chapter 4, the courts forcing schools to be equal is NOT incrementalism or gradual lol. Why would there not be retaliation against that as well? Why would that not also trigger people trying to leave and work around the public school system exactly like integration did? Seems like that needs a whole lot more explanation.
Bell's idea was to create a system that would resist resistance and provide equity while allowing room for segregationist sensibilities.
But to that point, you have a point. It isn't the most gradual approach. You would need to read the book to get the full story, and i tried to convey the reasoning in a bite sized chuck, but you lose things when you condense them.
On the other hand, this ties back to my issue of the lack of solutions. like i said in the video, neither the subject matter nor the people who wrote about it are above criticism. But having a criticism is a normal part of the academic world.
"It's not happening...
It's happening but not a lot and it's not a problem...
It's happening but it's good...
It's bad but it's your fault..."
Glad to finally have this.
Just frustrated with anti SJW people who complain about critical race theory, or assume it as result of “bad works” in pop culture community (at least in their opinions based disappointing works made or appeal to multicultural, like say…like say focusing on Gabby Rivera’s America Chavez while ignoring Coates’ Black Panther.) Like Cosmic Book News, Clownfish TV, Bounding Into Comics, and Quartering.
Even worse that it seems to find appeal among non Americans, especially pop culture nerd community.
This is probably one of the best CRT videos I've seen, and that it really goes into the history and context of it while being critical of its shortcomings, yet not being dismissive of its goals.
The one thing it doesn't seem to address is the ostensible roots in Marxist theory which are noted in other content, and I would be interested to see your take on that aspect of its development, if that's a thing
Certainly better than Vaush talking about CRT XD
@@oldomen3788i think anything is better than listening to a p3d0
The conclusion is beautiful. A love of the United States cannot be complete if we only love the surface stuff and refuse to look at the ways we fall short of the ideals of our founding documents.
Hi new viewer, loving going through your back catalogue but i have a crucial question where can i get that red hot illegal kimchi?
Saw you at the recent leftist cooks premiere and everyone recommended this video. They were right, great job!
to the point you made about it being challenging to imagine a system beyond lawyers and legal representation-- restorative and transformative justice models DO imagine a more equitable way to problem solve interpersonal harm done within society; highly encourage you to research these!!
Will do!
Worth the wait for a new video! Your table must be so much fun to play at considering your depth of thought and emotional range. Thanks for such a deep and through discussion of this topic.
Gotta say I'm disappointed, in UA-cam, for not bringing me here sooner. Found my way from the video with hoot (ttrpgs and also exploration of law topics? Sign me up!) And all I can really say is that I'm glad to have found your content, this thoroughness makes my autistic brain very happy. Looking forward to watching more of the library here!
The argument that meritocracy is racist simply because it lacks consideration for the fact that people have different starting points is quite a stretch. You can easily say it doesn’t do anything to help people with less fortunate starting points. You can say it serves most efficiently to make the rich richer, and maintain - without improving - the working class. You can even say it teaches the lower classes to work harder under the impression that a reward is to be had, only for certain other realities to prevent such achievement, thus milking the less fortunate dry. Or you can even say that no matter what systems might be in place, and no matter what sick things humanity inflicts upon itself, and separate from any plans or intentions, meritocracy prevails as a spiritual concept. But to take the obvious truth that people have different starting points, and to boil that down to purely a race issue, is cognitively anemic and MORE racist than how you describe meritocracy. Meritocracy might be surrounded by systemic racism, wether intentional or unintentional (I like how you pointed that out), and thus may be linkable to outcomes that are unequal seemingly on the basis of race alone, but this does not mean that meritocracy itself has to change. Meritocracy as a general concept is irrefutably good. I’m not saying that it’s possible to build a society on the tenets of meritocracy alone. There can be no strictly meritocratic society. But I am proudly stating that selecting those involved in a plan, when it’s possible, selecting based on merit is fundamentally the right thing to do. A collective understanding of this provides impetus to the society on multiple fronts. Calling meritocracy itself racist, even if it’s been dishonestly cited as an excuse for decisions made more based on race rather than merit, is like saying a framing hammer was designed to fracture someone else’s big toe. Though it might be useful for such morally detestable acts, that is no refute of the hammer’s immense value when used as intended, in good faith, etc. That exact same hammer built your house.
Watched the whole video and liked it 👍
48:55 This comes from the way people online throw words around without ever explaining what they actually mean, at least in my case. Intersectionality is a much more specific thing than the compound words convey, and when I heard of it I thought it's about how you are all the things that make up who you are all at once. So for instance you're not black in this situation, gay in that situation and neurodiverse in that situation; you're every part of yourself in every moment. It took several more months until I finally ran into someone that A) brought up intersectionality, and B) could actually be bothered to explain what it means that I finally realised I'd had completely wrong idea of what it means.
Now, if I was more actively politically engaged I'd probably have looked it up and realised sooner, but that's where this kind of in-talking (you know, as in talking to an in-group; spreaching to the choir, as they say) behaviour becomes a problem; most people _aren't_ that actively politically engaged, and if people don't explain the terms they're throwing around as if every person on the planet knows exactly what they mean, a lot of people are gonna get the wrong idea.
2 things.
1) On the racism in the past that used the exact same arguments as the modern day school choice/ voucher systems advocates, just because the arguments are essentially the same, I think its quite unfair to claim the motive for this is as well the same by merely associating it with an argument that some racists used before.
This reminds me of the argument.
Hitler owned a dog, u own a dog, u are Hitler analogy.
However I think your argument still stands because of the fact the arguments are so identical It's hard to look at them than anything other than the ones that came before it
Point is, the motive and intent can be completely different morally and nowadays let's not forget alot of Black ppl who happen to live in dangerous low income areas want the same ability for their kid. And if they Go to a good school that happens to be all white who gives a s*** a good school is a good school.
Secondly on the modern day cases in New Jersey about segregation. Again I'm not denying your arguments at all I'm simply stating something that should be held in account. Whether we like it or not self segregation is a naturally arising problem that we will face when it comes to segregation. You can take people anywhere on the map and gym and let them form groups and generally speaking similar people are going to hang out together. And that often breaks down along racial ethnic and cultural lines. So the government can make things illegal all they want but humans are still humans. And most of the time I think self segregation is just a natural way for socialization to establish, Especially when race is correlated a cultures share ideas, common themes beliefs and practices. So it's easier for ppl, for example Jewish people, to live in neighborhoods that are predominantly Jewish, especially when different languages are involved. This is a brute fact about Human nature, and while that MOSTLY UNCONCIOUS MECHANISM BECOMES CONSCIOUS ALL OF A SUDDEN, and ppl knowingly hold racist beliefs and commit racist actions, that's when it's a different ball game.
Very happy that you took the time to voice something on Rosens channel so that I could find out about you.
For the record when you talked about interest convergence and how it can feel conspiratorial because of a sort of causal/correlative relationship you could have referenced the laws furthered under FDR during the Second World War and the US' eventual entry into the pacific. If you are unfamiliar, slavery was still not properly combatted (for lack of a better way to express how I feel about what was going on) but suddenly at a federal level they began to crack down on it as it was believed that the US still being so blatantly racist or non-liberal would allow for the enemy to target minority groups with propaganda. This was of course an actual address that FDR gave, so, not quite as far removed as your example. It might be hard to say "Yes, that's why it happened" but it has happened before in a very similar way and circumstance.
I had watched your video about mixed race and DnD a couple weeks ago after seeing it mentioned in another video. I assumed by the quality that you were a much bigger channel, and were in the 10’s of thousands of subscribers at this point. Seeing how relatively low your subscribers are compared to your content’s quality. I hope you get the subscribers you deserve.
Thank you for making such a fantastic video once again. I don't have an essay to write for you this time; I simply don't have the knowledge or experience to really add anything to a 'conversation' about something like this.
Can you comment further on how you believe school choice is racist in 2023. Also, where are you with race based affirmative action? I learned a lot. Don’t agree with everything you said, but definitely appreciate your video
I think CRT does not have much to contribute to our current state. Your presentation and analysis are of high quality, of course.
Those proposals for achieving school equality sound like no child left behind on steroids. Huge federal oversight with rigid standards on outcomes seems like a recipe for forcing curricula into measurable systems that inevitably strip teachers of their agency to do their job.
I don’t disagree with the overall argument that maybe things would have been better if the legal emphasis after Brown were on equality - especially equality of funding. But man, that description of the judiciary deciding whether or not schools met the same “academic standards” made my skin crawl.
The first creation account of Genesis shows time relative to the actions of Elohim which to be clear is presented as being beyond our universe (ie. the heavans and the the earth), and therefore it is wrong to assume that the flow of time beyond our universe is the same as the flow of time within our universe. In the course of a week, an author could build his own world, but that does not tell us how much time actually passed in said world, and the Bible's usage of the word "Yom," which literally means day can also mean "age" or "era." So, what if creation took seven days from the point of view of Elohim? Does it mean that it took seven days from the point of view of created beings? No. And as for the story of Adam (the original high priest) being placed in Gan Eden in about 5500 BC, but nowhere does the Bible say that this Adam was the first man, rather the Biblical symbolism when compared to other Near Eastern Religions seems to suggest that Adam was the high priest of YHWH Elohim, so I think it is more likely that Yahwism began in about 5500 BC, not the universe itself, mind you, I am using the dating of the Greek Septuagint, as it is the version which I have done the calculations for.
Tirrb brought me here and I definitely subscribed.
The things you say make sense but then I hear the Piano and I can't help but feel like you're trying to manipulate my emotions into to being more agreeable with you, it's really off putting tbh with you
Lol, I think it sounds nice, and he probably liked it. I think he is smart enough to manipulate ppl thru music, I just don't think he's doing that, bc he's not a malevolent ne'er-do-well.
There's a perplexing problem here that I would love someone else to weigh in on.
This version of intersectionality in terms of legal consequences in loopholes is very fascinating.
But there's an important caveat here and that being it could have gone the other way.
If they're explicit racist goal was to further empower white men. It would actually make more sense for them to hire black women than to hire both black men and White women. This is because if they hired a single black woman it would have hit the quota for both groups and saved a job for a white man. If the primary goal of this oppression was to safeguard fellow white men why did they not do this?
It does support the intersectionality of discrimination as it would correlate a black woman having both blackness and femaleness would result in higher discrimination but it undermines it as an idea of oppression for the sake of benefit for white men or the intersectionality of privilege.
I don't disagree or agree with these paradigms I'm just wondering if anyone has any good input on this topic.
This video has been sorely needed for a long time. I can only imagine how much time and effort went into its research and production, but it really paid off. Thank you for helping us sort through the noise to better understand the history and nuances of such a complex topic.
Thank you. This was an excellent summary of a complicated subject. I have one small complaint: please tone down the background music. It is so loud it made it difficult for me to concentrate on what you were saying.
As someone who hopes to be a teacher within a few years, thank you so much.
This is one of the best channels I have found recently. So much good talk about law and politics both in real life and in fiction. I love how you focus on how things are rather than what they should be in so many cases-- it provides such a unique lense rather than the often repetitive moral arguments. And how even when doing that and addressing the more political reasons for a conflict it can still address a moral idea of what is right without even having to say it-- only having to prove it so clearly as this channel does.
I came here from the Zoe bee post, and I find some nerdy American Korean?
Good, I got a jar of black miso paste I got cause I needed miso for ramen and picked all the vegetarian options in the shop, can you give me ideas on what to do it with? Something delicious and vegetarian, I been mixing it with mushed potatoes so far, highly recommend
P.s. after watching it all, especially with your point on capitalism etc, letting others talk, etc,
As a trans Jewish atheist woman, who is anarcho communist, that wouldn't put anyone on a pedestal cause we all humans and screw up.
You got a new sub
Excellent. Both academically and educationally speaking. This has answered many questions about CRT I had.
Hey, thank you for taking the time to make this video (and to your child for the wall art). Subscribed and looking forward to the rest of your content!
Yeah a lot of people and companies did some racist shit. That's terrible. However many of the solutions proposed today seem to be "you need 50% women, 50% black and 50% black women to be working for your company or the company is racist!". Even if the company is in a field that is 10% or less women.
I also don't see the point of teaching the fact that GM didn't hire black women till after 1970 to high schoolers when likely the majority couldn't even tell you what CENTURY the civil war or revolutionary wars took place in after they graduate.
1:05:04 You say that meritocracy is racist, because it fails to account that all don't start equal. I agree that meritocracy doesn't account for starting position, but I mostly disagree regarding racism.
My position on race is that it's a silly thing to think about in the context of merit. There might be some statistical correlation between certain skin colors and performance at certain tasks, but just looking at someone's skin color is not a good test of such potential because there are much better tests that look at traits with much stronger correlations. My position on equality of opportunity is that there is no equality of opportunity without equality of outcome, and my position on equality is that it is NOT desirable. People who have better behavior deserve better outcomes and therefore better opportunities for themselves and their children. Equity is bad because society's job is not fairness, it is incentive.
It seems to me that when you talk of meritocracy here, that you don't mean intelligent meritocracy, you mean stupid meritocracy. That is, people who use bad traits to determine who has merit and who doesn't. But the thing is, meritocracy has layers. The people with power who choose poorly will, or at least should, compete against other people with power who choose wisely, and if racism truly is stupid (my hypothesis is that it is) then those who engage in racism will underperform economically.
I understand that racists often don't care about being right, they just care about being racist, and therefore they often take advantage of opportunities to fake stupidity in any system that upholds personal choice. This applies to meritocracy in much the same way that it was used in the "school choice" example that you presented earlier. But that's not really meritocracy, that's racism in meritocracy's clothing.
I think the problem with arguments for meritocracy is that they are too individualistic to be applicable to anything meaningful.
Meritocracy focuses only on an individual and doesn't account for the social systems we all have and navigate. Those systems can be biased for or against individuals.
Society is a system we design to improve our access to food, shelter and mating. It is a system we continually revise and redesign to suit our needs and wants.
@@doodleprophet "too individualistic to be applicable to anything useful." I fiercely disagree.
The human animal does not have the ability to communicate telepathically. Consciousness is a strictly individual affair, and that is not a negotiable, it is a biological fact. It is immutable.
So the proper method of society is to harness individualism to achieve its goals. That is, I am saying individualism is always the means, not that it is the ends; it's like a hydroelectric power plant uses the flow of water as the means, but the ends are totally separate.
Throughout history there have been many stupid theories of society, and what they all have in common is people just assuming that other people have the same ideology that they do, and that people will not act individualistically. Such societies always fail, because as Francis Bacon said, nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. You cannot fix the problem of individualism by simply handwaving it away and pretending it doesn't exist.
There is only one way to make people as a whole behave altruistically, and it is to make it so that the self-interested course of action and the altruistic course of action are so similar as to be potentially either. The end goal of an incentive system is to convince individuals that what is best for society is best for them individually.
@@williamking7800 Sounds like you are describing the Critical Race Theory topic of "Interest Convergence"
You should try watching this video in full. The creator did a great job covering the legal history and events that lead to Derrick Bell making CRT to understand why civil rights progress encounters such resistance and backlash throughout American history.
@@doodleprophet Regarding interest convergence, I mostly agree with it, but it's ultimately a product of critical theory and therefore places undue emphasis on an oppressor/oppressed dynamic. (I disagree with critical race theory because I disagree upon critical theory, in which it is based. I haven't encountered any original ideas of Bell that I disagree with, but I disagree with many of the ideas he borrowed from Marcuse.
Interest convergence is based on a very simple idea which is much older than critical race theory, specifically: that the worse the status quo looks, the more popular alternatives to the status quo look. If the status quo seems to be humming along fine, people tend to approve of it, and when it seems to be under some kind of existential threat, sensible people consider making incremental changes. All Bell did was take this very basic concept and give it a critical theory paint job. Don't get me wrong, it's a valid idea at its core, but it's borderline common sense.
@@williamking7800 James Lindsey will rot your brain. I don't think you've engaged with any of Herbert Marcuse's works or Derrick Bell's to be able to say what ideas were borrowed. I'm just hearing the thought stopper: CRT is CT which comes from the Frankfurt School which comes from Marx therefore it's bad.
Critical Race Theory is constitutional history.
You cannot teach or understand the US Constitution without Critical Race Theory
If you listened to the video where the creator discusses criticisms of CRT, one of them is that CRT doesn't prescribe solutions. It mainly exists to describe and understand the problem of racism and resistance to civil rights progress.
I don't think your claim of existential threat forcing sensible people to consider making incremental changes matches with American history.
The first Civil Rights Era was radical and revolutionary change, not incremental
Hello, I discovered your channel from WatchCrunch. I am the most recent argument in favor of the Farer. I still think it is perfect for this suit 😁
This video is so informative and places the information in some of the least biased format I have seen.
My wife just took a class on CRT for her PhD. I never took that class in law school, but I did learn other similar lenses and how to apply them, so while I'm not specifically well versed in CRT, I do understand generallly what it is about.
The sheer quality alone is impressive, but your breakdown of CRT, especially with your experience, was just a solid and informative watch.
Great job as always!
Commenting for the algorithm because this was phenomenal media. Thank you.
Some of your roleplaying videos have been popping up in my feed over the last couple weeks, and I've thoroughly enjoyed them. This video, however, earned my subscription. Outstanding video, sir. Thank you.
Absolutely amazing summary of CRT. Thank you for the time and effort you put into making this!
Nice, new video!
Oh, i have to wait :(
Laughed out loud at the reveal that this is a dnd channel xD
i feel like if we could somehow get every american to watch this and listen we could solve half our problems overnight. shame so few are seeing it :/
regardless, good work
Dr. James Lindsey former Mathematician has much to say about critical theories.
I am amazed at the quality and quantity. Thanks and keep up the good work.
I love the video!!!! So informative and great to watch. As someone who is right leaning, I do see what your are saying about it the banning of CRT is really being used as a way to stop criticism of the US. However, I don’t think people are completely making everything up about some people on the left taking these ideas into weird conclusions and confusing the public. The reason the public became confused was because of these terrible situations with left wing weirdos. I understand that these weirdos are not the responsibility of you or any CRT creator to speak for. However, they do claim to be CRT proponents and that damages the conversation. When we have people saying that only whites can be racist (and some teachers have been caught saying things of that nature in their class), that unless we have absolutely equal outcomes then there is proof of racism, or people behaving on mainstream news outlets and through academia as if whites can never be victims of anything, it hurts the conversation. The left needs to expel these people who say these types of things. Call them out and get rid of them. Because they have hurt the conversation on what the true CRT is and people might be more open to it, if they knew that it wasn’t just a way of condemning whites as sinners and POC as saints. To be fair I do think that this is starting to happen, Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks has had a few takes where she discusses weird ideas in her own side and calls it out. I think if that area is cleaned up more and we can get people less angry, than maybe we can have real conversations. Because people on the right feel that CRT being banned is banning all the stuff that I mentioned above, not this stuff about legal theories or whatever.
The algorithm recommended this to me again, a year later.
It's so good I'm gonna watch it again.
Wait a minute… an RPG nerd doubling as a political educator??? FINALLY somebody I can trust.
1) Would it solve "no discrimination based on race, sex, religion, gender, etc" if we were to add "or due to any combination thereof" to the end of it? Or is that Pandora's box of stretch arguments? I could see that causing significant shifts but I can't see anything high res.
2) I agree, free speech dictates that CRT concepts being taught in classes should be fair game if those concepts are actually relevant to the students. (Which based on the context given in this video, it would only really apply in like an AP Government class) Is there anything to be said though for parent choice in what's taught in their children's schools? Or has that authority been surrendered to the DoE?
I am really liking this video. I don't agree with everything you say, but I really appreciate where you are coming from and all of the evidence you are using in our points. The thing I liked the most about this video was the explanation of intersectionality and of activism done with law purposes. This was as helpful as the episodes of Code Switch/Notes from America podcasts explaining activism terms. Both these legal and activism terms are often tossed around in the pop culture way that I'm learning is not why they were invented, and learning the history/original intent clarifies a big deal of the online pop culture conflict, for me. Great video, subscribed and looking forward to the next video!
I found this video because I searched, "Why critical race theory is bad." I like to hear the other side's opinion, especially since people in my idealogical bubble tend to have no idea. "Because they're stupid and racist" cannot always be true. Somewhere along the line, someone with a different opinion from me has an argument that /sounds/ logical and is worth understanding. I thought I was going to hate this video because I don't like the title. It grabs my attention, but I know LegalKimchi does not *actually* think everyone is wrong about CRT. I learned so much in this video, and I wish everyone would take the time to listen to the whole thing. In the meantime, I'll just have to be best in summarizing it for people who want to learn more. Thank you!
I think it is important to remember the times we are living in. Socialism is on the rise and unionization is on the rise and the neo-liberal ideology of "personal responsibility" has been discredited in the eyes of many. The crackdown on 'CRT' is more about maintaining elite power and trying to suppress critical thinking and spread pro-American propaganda.
The first minute of this video alone is a masterpiece that opened up my eyes to the spread of information lmao. Love your voice
Can I upvote this more than once?
My best attempt at an improvement in the situation of the poor getting shafted in criminal court is to mandate that public defenders offices be granted a budget *no less than* their district attorney counterparts. This at least puts the PDs on a *theoretically* equal footing with the DA's office on a financial level. Probably not sufficient to solve the problem, but it should at least mitigate it.
I attended a private school until my second year of highschool. In the entire duration of my stay there, we had _two_ black students, and on of them only for highschool. I don't think there was even one latino, and we only had asian atudents because of an exchange program with South Korea, for some reason.
Segregation is still alive and well, people.
Thank you so much for taking the time to put all this information together and present it in such a professional and accessible way. I'm definitely saving this for future reference. Keep up the good work :)
I never liked calling Koramatzu one of the worst decisions. It established the strict scritiny test. It formed the foindation of civil rights litigation for the next century. It is criticized because it applied that test in the worst possible way, to allow the internment of Japanese Americans. So in the facts, it was horrific, but on the law it was fantastic. That mixed legacy makes it hard for me to compare it to cases like Dredd Scott.
Derek Bell's ideas remind me of a point made by Rene Girard, law can't secure a society that is immune to conflict and scapegoating. What it does do is create new layers of deceit and hypocrisy.
Probably a naive question, but doesn't a "legal realism" approach move the privilege/burden of legal revision to singular judges effectively removing the same from the relevant legislature?
The uninitiated pedant in me cringes at that, but the pragmatic adult also in head can see the value.
Yall didn't listen to the video did yall 😂 I am not about to hate a theory because some racist or bigot told me it negatively effected me. Stay WOKE!
But if we don't start by point the flaws, then what? In any case, thank you.
Hi, 2nd time watcher, first time commenter. Love this video. I absolutely believe that the foundations of this should be taught so we can build, rebuild, iterate, discuss etc. like we do with all social sciences, to help us understand the frameworks of our society (I'm given to understand we live in one 😱)
I really enjoyed the video, but your section on your own criticisms of CRT - a refreshingly thoughtful consideration of its potential shortcomings - is what earned you a subscriber.
Looking forward to more!
Capping it all off with the Indiana Jones quote was thoroughly cathartic.
Both plaintiff and defendant could combine funds in escrow to divide evenly between both attorneys at the conclusion of trial.
A judge was initially the most rational being in the village. It had nothing to do with this insanity of multiple laws over laws over laws.
This is a great video! Love the expansion into intersectionality too
Thank you very much for this video and the work you put into learning all of what you presented here, throughout your life.
As a non-american it's tough to grasp the nuances, or some times even the plain facts, of race and racism in the US. Having a foundation in History I find it somewhat easier than some other people I've talked to about it in my country, but I really needed your presentation and didn't even know it until I heard it.
Great video! Learnt a lot about the historical context, people kept talking about CRT having "legal origins" but never went into any depth.
Not as much a fan of the opinion section of the video, I feel like it takes away from the (more neutral) educational aspect.
What I find funny though is despite disagreeing with a lot of your opinion, I agree with the policy you arrived at. (teaching CRT maybe a bit in high school and definitely in Uni)
Thanks. Great talk. I don't agree with you about everything and think you give a few pat answers to some questions that might deserve more serious consideration, but overall I agree with you and feel a great sympathy for anyone who can say they are not in complete lockstep with what has come to be called CRT. Because in this day of "You are either FOR us, or AGAINST us!" (especially given the unfortunate intersection of social justice and narcissism that has bloomed in recent years) even saying such a thing invites vitriol - for some of us more than others. This wasn't your first video that I liked, and I'm sure it won't be your last. Thanks again.
thanks for an important history lesson LK, i was wondering about this new controversy. Yes we are all horrified by the American arc of history wondering, "where is this going...?" Please keep explaining so we can expand our consciousness the way education has expanded yours, sensei - i bow to you