Let’s Talk About… Critical Race Theory

Before we enter into a discussion about Critical Race Theory, let’s ask a question, or two.

First, is discrimination based upon skin color, ethnicity, national origin, or any other factor, something that can be eliminated by law?

Or, is it a flaw, a character defect permanently present in humanity?

At its root, racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and other ‘isms and phobias are based upon an inherent dislike, even to the point of hatred, of others who are dissimilar in some aspect, and because of that dissimilarity thereby become the object, and target of scorn and hatred from and by a perpetrator. Any discriminatory behavior by the perpetrator is justified by the same upon the alleged differences in the object (the one(s) being discriminated against), i.e., the victim(s), and subject, i.e., the perpetrator – the “hater” and “hatee,” if you will.

Various laws, including liberal laws regardless of their age, have thus far failed to eliminate such innately discriminatory practices, and damages, from law, or from business. The myriad laws in our nation touching upon the slave trade, slavery, and discrimination stand as ongoing evidence of that fact.

Everything Old Is New Again

In Abraham Lincoln’s day, a segment of the Republican party then called “Radical Republicans” — a faction within the Republican party comprised primarily of Northern altruists, industrialists, former Whigs, practical politicians, etc., led by Thaddeus Stevens in the House of Representatives, and Charles Sumner in the Senate, from about 1854 until the end of Reconstruction in 1877 — were renown for their goal of immediate, total, and completely permanent eradication of slavery, without compromise. They were opposed even by members of their own party, as well as by Democrats.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

Today, within the Democratic party, the Progressive faction is opposed by “moderates,” and they’re all opposed by Republicans.

And even within the Republican party today, there are also splinters and divisions. The “Trumpers” aka sycophants of the 45th POTUS, and the more level-headed, even-keeled moderate faction of the party.

There are lessons to be learned from history… if only we’ll learn them. And sadly, it seems as if we’re condemned to repeat them, time, and time, and time again.

It was Spanish-born American philosopher/poet George Santayana (1863-1952) who wrote that…

“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

–– George Santayana (1863-1952), Spanish philosopher, writing in “The Life of Reason: The Phases of Human Progress“ (1905-1906), Vol. I, “Reason in Common Sense”

So… what about Critical Race Theory?

What is it?

Where’d it come from?

Who invented it?

What does it say, do, or advocate?

The very heart, the “nut,” or crux of the matter is addressed above, and could be stated this way:

Is it possible to eradicate discriminatory practices, and any associated damages, through legislation, and if not, to what extent are such discriminatory practices present, and how can they be rectified, or ameliorated, if at all?

Essentially, Critical Race Theory is a sophisticated, esoteric, high-level legal academic pursuit, which acknowledges that, to this point historically, laws (again, even liberal laws, regardless of their age) have failed to eradicate racism, racist practices, and discrimination, and asks if legal avenues (laws) are able to eradicate it, or if it’s a fixture permanently etched upon the human heart, and thereby inherently present in all laws, and if so, to what extent.

So yes, it’s a broadly-encompassing theoretical legal academic pursuit, and a question which possibly, might never be answered. Yet, there is understanding to be gained by such pursuit, and it is just plain wrong to chastise those who pursue such high-level questions and thinking.

16th Century Thought Police, and The Law of Unintended Consequences

Such chastisement is akin to the Church’s history of punishing or excommunicating scientists “back in the day” who posited that

Hard Work

Thinking is hard work — which is why

Refraining From Negative Personal Criticism

Do you ever negatively criticize people? Perhaps even, those closest to you – meaning loved ones, and dear friends?

Why is it that such seems to be the case, more often, than not?

To refrain from negatively criticizing people is a loving decision that I’ve made which respects people.

It doesn’t mean that I always agree with their decisions, but it allows

Little Irritants

The toilet lid is up.

The toilet seat is up.

The toothpaste cap is off.

The toothpaste tube is squeezed all over.

The toilet paper hangs off the back.

The toilet paper hangs off the front.

Dirty dishes remain in the kitchen sink overnight.

We are only as big as the smallest thing that irritates us.

Professor Dr. Robert Alter, PhD, professor of Hebrew and comparative literature at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote in his 1984 book “The Art of Biblical Poetry” that a dialogue with “the voices of two lovers, praising each other, yearning for each other, proffering invitations to enjoy” the sensuous joys of sexuality and the encouraging dialogue of friends occurs in Song of Solomon, the unmistakably erotic book in the Bible.

Feminist Biblical scholar Dr. Jo Cheryl Exum, PhD, Professor Emeritus at the University of Sheffield, England, in an expository entitled “Song of Songs” in the 2012 book “Women’s Bible Commentary,” wrote in part that, “We do not know whether or not the situation – love, one-to-one relationship – allowed a certain freedom from social constraints, or whether the genre (love poetry) of the social setting (private rather than public life) accounts for the Song’s unique portrayal of mutuality in love, but in any event, the Song testifies to a world-view that included a vision of romance in which

Could the three-martini lunch make a comeback? More booze news you can use!

Bear this in mind as you read the following news item: For the vast majority of workplaces, alcohol consumption during work hours could lead to significantly more than mere dismissal from employment. For those whose work involves human life – such as heavy machinery operators, healthcare professionals, law enforcement officers, and others – it could result in harm or loss of life to individuals.

However, for those who do high-level thinking, or are involved in the creative arts, this could be a boon to their efforts.

To your health!

—

Having A Drink Or Two At Work Could Boost Your Productivity

Jhaneel Lockhart, March 23, 2012

Knocking back a beer at work might make you think more strategically, according to a recent University of Illinois study that tested the effects of alcohol on problem-solving.

“Being mildly drunk facilitates a divergent, diffuse mode of thought, which is useful for such tasks where the answer requires thinking on a tangent,” says BPS Research Digest.

The researchers observed 40 men between the ages of 21 and 30. Half of them drank enough vodka to

Thinking about foot rubbing… and marriage

Who came up with this idea of marriage, anyway?

Read on, for a very thoughtfully expressed idea, from a non-religious perspective.

—

A thought experiment about marriage

A world in which sexual intimacy could not produce children would never have come up with the idea of marriage.

 In previous articles, I have asserted that if sex did not naturally lead to children, no one would ever have conceived the idea of marriage. My claim may be obvious to most people, but we live in a world in which people who never intend to have children get married; so, of course, do some people who want children but are infertile. In generations past, we felt compassion for those who married but did not have children, because it was presumed that they wanted children, since, after all, they married one another. No longer can we presume this. The era of contraception and surgical sterilization has altered the face, so to speak, of the childless couple, and consequently the face of the married couple.

The quest for same-sex marriage begins here. In a world where seeking marriage is seeking a community-endorsed way to have sex and bear children, the idea of same-sex marriage is like the idea of a square circle. The very idea of same-sex marriage is conceivable only in a world that is using the term “marriage” in a completely different way, to refer to something of a completely different nature.

Allow me, then, to make a case for my assertion about sex, children, and marriage through a “thought experiment”—a scenario in which human beings have no word for, no concept of, marriage.

Imagine a colony of young men who have no memory of ever having lived anywhere else. Properly speaking, the men do not even know that they are men, but only that they are different from all the other creatures they encounter. They hunt and gather. They are naturally social beings who care about each other, form friendships, try to please one another, generally

Experience – Is it the WORST teacher, or the BEST?

Someone once wrote that experience is the WORST teacher, because it gives a test FIRST… THEN teaches the lesson AFTERWARD.

In some way, I rather think that correct, while – as you’ll read – in yet another perspective, it may be the best… but only if you listen.