Critical Race Theory, Pauline Hanson and lemon juice.
This week the Australian Senate passed a motion calling on the Federal Government to exclude critical race theory from the national teaching curriculum.
The motion was moved by right-wing Senator Pauline Hanson of the One Nation Party, and supported by conservative parties. Critical race theory, or CRT, is an academic theory developed primarily by Black scholars and activists to highlight the systemic and institutional nature of racism.
This action came after The Australian, a News Corp national newspaper, opined that the proposed draft national curriculum is “preoccupied with the oppression, discrimination and struggles of Indigenous Australians”.
CRT is a collection of theoretical frameworks, which provide lenses through which to examine structural and institutional racism.
Within CRT, racism is viewed as more than just individual prejudices. Instead, it is considered to include a wide range of social practices deeply embedded in policies, laws and institutions.
CRT was developed from the 1960s and 1970s by legal scholars applying sociological critical theory in their work, although the term “CRT” did not emerge until the late 1980s. They investigated how and why racial disparities persisted in the United States (although the theory framework is not country-specific, and can be applied to any country, like, I’d suggest, Australia or Canada), and did so through analysing these disparities in the legal and criminal justice system, as well as how education and employment opportunities (or lack theoreof) impacted generational wealth accumulation.
Some general principles underpin CRT.
They include:
- race is understood as a “social construct” rather than a biological reality. That is, supposed “racial” differences between groups of humans are founded in our social experience rather than our genetics (this is well supported by scientific evidence)
- “systemic racism” means social institutions and practices unwittingly contribute to and maintain white supremacy. “Invisible” everyday practices perpetuate racial inequality and inequity in health, education and the law
- everyone has multiple, overlapping aspects of their identity which may impact their life experiences. These include race, gender, age, class, sexual orientation, disability and nationality. This suggests many people understand or interpret their life experiences through this “intersectional” lens
- critical race theory encourages reflection on normalised ways of doing things, especially to question who benefits from systemic privilege and why.
Opponents of critical race theory sometimes claim it creates division and discord between people. For example, they claim critical race theory is intended to make people with privileged identities, such as being white, “hate themselves” or feel shame and guilt for their whiteness.
Which is to say, an absurd and irrelevant response — “I’m uncomfortable about my racism and don’t want to think about it”!
Either CRT is supported by argument and evidence, or it is not. If CRT is a logically consistent argument, and there is supporting evidence, it behoves us to acknowledge that, and to work for a solution –else we give up on even a pretence of rationality and fairness, and we’re all pig-people.
I maintain that CRT is so –consistent with reason and evidence– that structural and everyday racism is very real, and it has consequences, beyond the affronted indignation of opponents. See this report by the Australian National University’s National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health:
See here for facts on Indigenous disadvantage in Australia:
https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/law
What causes the incandescent rage of the conservatives and right-wing at mere mention of CRT? And why no such reaction to, say, skyrocketing housing and health costs, increasing wealth inequality and inaction on climate change, political incompetence and unaccountability, or police brutality?
Egocentric bias, privilege, fear, and an application of lemon juice!
The genius of Senator Matt Canavan.
Right-wing Senator Matt Canavan, a major recipient of donations (bribes) from the coal industry, tweeted that because snow has fallen in winter in parts of New South Wales that do sometimes have snow falls, climate change is a lie!
The reality is, as the climate warms, record-breaking cold weather is becoming less common. And one winter storm does not negate more than a century of human-caused global warming.
I am reminded of a shop I deal with in western Queensland, as part of my work. The shop owner, who owns a property outside of town, told me that his local council area has been drought-declared for the last 12 years. In that time, they had received a total of 28mm of rain, and that mostly occurred in just 2 rain events.
One can picture Canavan visiting, walking outside during 1 of those 2 rain events, and yelling: ‘You’re not in drought. It’s raining!”
Duh!!
The lies of Australian Prime Minister SmugMo, the Great Smirker.
Every Australian should read this article. SmugMo is of course not the first politician to lie, but always brazen and sometimes delusional is he. Morrison is a nauseating mix of the deceitful marketing man, the supercilious fool, and the compassionless ‘Christian’ whose God is Money, so the lies come easy to him.
Please help me choose!
Just announced is that Queensland politicians are to receive 3 pay rises over the next 18 months. Bear in mind that Australian politicians are very well paid anyway, and have lucrative superannuation and pension benefits not available to other workers.
Justification: Pay peanuts and you’ll get monkeys. Reality: Pay a fortune and get monkeys!
I have been in my current job for about 14 years, and in that time I have received 2 pay rises. But by all reports, I am very good at my job. I know there are millions of Australian workers worse off than me, and it gets worse year after year as the army of the working poor swells–the underpaid full-time, casuals and part-time workers– those people for whom work means only a subsistence life.
If I made mistakes that cost the company an amount of money they deemed unacceptable, I’m certain I would be summarily dismissed.
Yet a politician can make the most costly mistakes (costly to the taxpayer that is), the most egregiously bad decisions –ignorant, corrupt, or stupid– and never be held accountable.
Oh, what did you say? There’s an election every X number of years? Now that’s a long time to be incompetent and keep your job, isn’t it?
Election time. Oh it’s such a difficult decision to make.
Please help me choose.
Who should I choose to pay to make incompetent and unaccountable decisions in secret?
Tweedle-dum or tweedle-dee??
Thecuriousmail's Weblog 
leave a comment