Posted on 10/19/2020 8:54:33 AM PDT by Kaslin
Critical race theory likely advances the cause of white nationalism, and the president is right to oppose it
President Donald Trump announced on Sept. 5 an end to critical race theory training in federal agencies. As explained by Russ Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the policy change targets “training or propaganda” pertaining to “white privilege” and efforts to advance the claim that “the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or … that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil.” On Sept. 22, the president extended this ban to companies doing business with the federal government. He was right on both counts.
Critical race theory and similar academic left perspectives over the last decade stormed the political mainstream through a surge in news and popular media attention. As a result, today politicians, celebrities, and corporations employ “critical,” or woke, rhetoric. Even comic books push critical themes despite hostile reactions from their readers.
On the left, this dynamic fueled the “Great Awokening,” the leftward radicalization of white liberals on racial issues. Liberal whites are now to the left of blacks on key measures of race. Moreover, as evidenced by a recent Hidden Tribes report and the mugshots of arrested Antifa members, the far left is overwhelmingly white.
But how has critical rhetoric affected right-leaning whites? Are white conservatives likewise getting woke to these Marxism-inspired perspectives? Are they rejecting normative colorblindness, the former standard of antiracism? Have they embraced The New York Times’ revisionist account of American history? Do they accept that only whites are capable of racism, that all whites are racist, and that white identity itself is uniquely pathological and deserving of abolition?
To the contrary, it seems that white identity’s renewed salience — its “visibility,” in the language of Peggy McIntosh — is contributing to a defensive response. Conservative whites are increasingly likely to describe being white as “very” or “extremely” important (see figure below). A clear majority of white Republicans, but few white Democrats, describe anti-white and anti-black discrimination as comparable problems in American society.
Then there is the proverbial elephant in the room: Trump. Notwithstanding the often disingenuous and sometimes absurd racism allegations some level at him, it is undeniable that Trump frequently transgresses norms of political correctness in communicating his views to the public. Such rhetoric resonates with people who appreciate Trump’s blunt style or delight in trolling the left, but it also resonates with people for whom white identity is especially important. The latter group includes the alt-right, a white nationalistic movement that emerged in the wake of the Great Awokening.
In my dissertation research, I approach white nationalism and conservatism as rival philosophies competing for the loyalties of right-leaning whites. I consider whether exposure to critical themes in popular media might have contributed to a white identity backlash or “white-lash” on the right. Illustrative examples include:
I began my inquiry by searching the frequency with which the terms “white people,” “whites,” and “white men” appeared online since the year 2000. I recorded “hits” for articles criticizing white people and identity and for “anti-critical” articles, those arguing against critical themes (see Schorr forthcoming, Appendix 197 for details).
The figure below displays search results alongside trends in white identification — or “How important is being white to your identity?” — for self-identified “liberal,” “moderate,” and “conservative” whites in the American National Election Studies Time Series.
The proportion of conservatives describing white identity as “very” or “extremely” important (“high identifiers”) increased from 32.1 percent in 2012 to 36.6 percent in 2016. High-identifying liberals increased slightly (23.2 percent to 24.6 percent) as well, while high-identifying moderates decreased (32.7 percent to 29.4 percent). The timeline is truncated because the American National Election Studies first included the white identification measure in 2012; however, the trend lines suggest recent polarization on white identity.
I began my inquiry by searching the frequency with which the terms “white people,” “whites,” and “white men” appeared online since the year 2000. I recorded “hits” for articles criticizing white people and identity and for “anti-critical” articles, those arguing against critical themes (see Schorr forthcoming, Appendix 197 for details).
The figure below displays search results alongside trends in white identification — or “How important is being white to your identity?” — for self-identified “liberal,” “moderate,” and “conservative” whites in the American National Election Studies Time Series.
The proportion of conservatives describing white identity as “very” or “extremely” important (“high identifiers”) increased from 32.1 percent in 2012 to 36.6 percent in 2016. High-identifying liberals increased slightly (23.2 percent to 24.6 percent) as well, while high-identifying moderates decreased (32.7 percent to 29.4 percent). The timeline is truncated because the American National Election Studies first included the white identification measure in 2012; however, the trend lines suggest recent polarization on white identity.
Survey Reveals Harms of Critical Race Theory
To subject the whitelash hypothesis to a more rigorous test, I conducted a survey experiment from Aug. 1-29, 2019. In total, 1,527 white respondents were treated with “primes” representative of contemporary discussions of race and then questioned on topics of identity and group attitudes. I focused specifically on self-identified conservative and high white-identifying respondents.
To capture the effects of critical rhetoric, I used an excerpt from Macy Sto. Domingo’s “18 Things White People Seem To Not Understand (Because, White Privilege).” Among white conservatives, this “critical prime” predicted 8 percent increased support (weighted mean) for whites “work[ing] together to improve the position of their group,” in comparison to the “control group.”
To further probe the effects of critical themes on identity, I asked respondents to rate the importance of certain factors to being “truly American.” Here, critical prime exposure appears to have narrowed the boundaries of the “in-group.”
For example, conservative whites expressed 12 percent greater agreement that only those with “American ancestry” are truly American. High white-identifiers expressed 20 percent greater agreement with this same claim and 8 percent greater support for restricting American identity to those “born in the U.S.” Critical prime exposure also increased conservative “ethnocentrism,” or net “feeling thermometer” preference for whites over minorities by 5 percent.
In most cases, findings were the opposite for white leftists. Exposure to the critical prime thus created a wider gap between the racial attitudes reported by left-leaning and conservative (also low/high white-identifying) whites.
I next considered the effects of anti-critical and conciliatory primes. The former was excerpted from Dennis Prager’s “The Fallacy of White Privilege.” As the title suggests, Prager challenges the credibility of critical themes.
The conciliatory prime was excerpted from David French’s “Racism and the Indelible Impact of Personal Experience.” French does not address critical themes. Rather, he recounts becoming more aware of racial prejudice in day-to-day interactions after he and his wife, who are white, adopted their black daughter.
Before analyzing survey findings, my expectation was that exposure to anti-critical rhetoric would similarly mobilize identification and prejudice from the target groups. I was half right. Surprisingly, the Prager article was associated with sharp reductions in identification: High-identifying whites expressed less concern for whites’ comparative social position (-11 percent), job security (-15 percent), and treatment under the law (-9 percent).
Findings from the conciliatory prime were also mixed. High white-identifiers were more willing to restrict American identity to those with “American ancestry” (8 percent), but they also expressed 14 percent greater agreement that “racial minorities are, on average, just as patriotic as white Americans.” Crucially, white conservative ethnocentrism dropped 24 percent. Thus, findings from both “conservative” primes offered cause for optimism whereas findings from the critical prime were more consistently undesirable.
Much can be said regarding the conceptual and normative deficiencies of critical race theory and whiteness studies, including how these perspectives demean people of color. My research concerns their practical deficiencies. Insofar as white identity polarization is a reciprocal process, critical race theory and company likely advance the cause of white nationalism.
The president is right to oppose critical race theory, and opponents of racism should applaud his efforts.
I should add, it is like after 70 years of trying to help others you see “the pig returns to it’s mire and the dog returns to it’s vomit.”
It is just a rationalization for anti-white bigotry, and to cultivate a sense of victimhood in non-whites.
Simply: Divide and conquer.
CRT is just pure Marxism. They just replaced historical materialism with historical racism. Both are lies.
Especially with so many examples of minorities with college degrees and no skills in thier fields of study. And always having to watch your back around them. They are fiends until they turn on you and go tribal. Not all, but enough to make it an issue. This is the real damage to minorities from affirmative action and EEO. Of course, the good ones are damaged with the scammers. And it take them years longer to establish a good reputation.
The truth as I see it is that BLM is creating more racists than the KKK ever did.
Research Shows Critical Race Theory Is Actually Making People More Racist
Duh! That’s the whole point.
Indeed.
It is a seducing spirit and and a doctrine of demons, the exact thing that the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul warned us about in I Tim. 4:1.
I don't doubt it for a nanosecond !
bookmark
Divide and conquer.
"We must all hang together, or ... we shall all hang separately," -B Franklin.
We are willingly being divided with the label of racist and non-racist. How about something along the line of All The Creator’s children are made in His image and let it go at that.
Critical Race Theory was thought up by racists and racists teach it, so of course, it will increase racism.
GET RID OF IT.
I think I am too old to be reprogrammed out of colorblindness. As a child anti racism was taught to me, we were all the same, just varying colors of skin, language, cultures. It’s in me and the leftists who want me to worship nonwhites... sorry, you’re gonna have to kill me. We are all the same. In Gd’s eyes. Our behavior is how we should be judged.
Thanks. I appreciate your comments.
A few years ago, I was re-reading Genisis and I noticed something. After creating Man, God gave him dominion over all living things, except for other men. I’m starting to re-think the term “power” to explain the Democrat party.
While I suspect that it is colloquial for “power over people”, we tend to absorb what is said over what is meant. We should all have power, so much power that we do not need dominion over our fellow men in order to succeed and prosper.
When we see people attempting to gain power over other people, we are seeing incompetence writ large. These are people who do not have enough talent, intelligence and strength of character to achieve their goals or ambitions. So they seek to subordinate others and wield the power of those people, who, left to themselves, would achieve much greater things.
Lately, that has been my primary and maybe sole benchmark for all legislation and governmental activity: Does this proposal give other men power over their fellows? If yes, it’s bad. If it serves others, then no, it’s ok.
From my studies of history, this one thing is at the source of most wars. People seeking dominance over others. With the founding of the USA, that whole paradigm was upended and the least among us have been seeking to restore it ever since.
No wonder the Democrat party is so anti-Christian.
I could have saved them a lot of time and money
Poppycock.
My dad had a third-grade education then ran away from home because he father beat him. He became an extremely wealthy chain-restaurant creator. Worked hard every single day of his life. God bless him, I still think of him every day. Best parent in the universe.
continuation of above post:
...and he was never racist. Employed a lot of blacks, liked them, befriended them.
>> What a shock.
Exactly, but the Libtards love their idiotic adventures in social engineering.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.