Please articulate the disagreement as you see it. My view would be this: CRT and traditional civil rights thinking can both get behind the reasons for the 1982 amendment to the VRA, and the thinking behind "Thornburg", as far as it goes.
-
-
Replying to @jholbo1 @Sebastian_Hols and
One obvious difference is that the opinion in Griggs held that job requirements that have a disparate impact can only be used by employers if they are "reasonably related" to job performance.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JamesSurowiecki @Sebastian_Hols and
How would that be relevant in the AZ case? No one is arguing that the AZ measures make real sense, from a prevent-actual-voting-fraud angle. They only clear the lowest bar of 'rational basis'. But 'reasonably related' would be a higher test than that minimum.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @jholbo1 @Sebastian_Hols and
Right - which is why you don't need the insights of Derrick Bell and Kimberle Crenshaw to find the AZ measures to be a violation of the VRA. You just need civil-rights-era jurisprudence - or just the text of Section 2, as amended.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JamesSurowiecki @Sebastian_Hols and
Hence Jeet's tweet, making this point. The point of the anti-CRT stuff is to be very sloppy, by design, to the point where all this other stuff is CRT as well. Because that's the ballgame: to roll back the traditional stuff as well as doubleplusungood CRT. Cf. this SC decision.
3 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @jholbo1 @Sebastian_Hols and
I agree that the anti-CRT stuff is sloppy by design. I also think some progressives respond to conservative attacks by trying to domesticate genuinely radical projects/policies (like crt, 1619, defund), and that's a mistake. ("Radical" there is a description, not a criticism.)
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JamesSurowiecki @Sebastian_Hols and
Agree with Jeet. 1619 is just not radical. A couple people were wrong about a couple things. But that's separate. CRT is a mix of sane and insane and radical and non-radical, but it contains a lot of radical and non-radical sanity.
4 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @jholbo1 @Sebastian_Hols and
The idea that America's true founding was not 1776, but 1619, is absolutely radical. That's the point of the project - to overturn prevailing ideas of what's essential to American history.
5 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @JamesSurowiecki @jholbo1 and
No, the idea that American identity dates back to earliest settlement & not 1776 can be found in fairly conservative works -- Kendall & Carey's Basic Symbols, Russell Kirk's work, Fischer's Albion's Seed. The only radicalism is foregrounding slavery.
5 replies 5 retweets 30 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet @JamesSurowiecki and
The idea is that American identities date back to the earliest settlements. That one plural changes the whole argument.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I don't find the arguments that the black struggle for freedom is central to American identity, that black people have agency, and that the black experience in USA is distinct to be that extreme. It just seems like common sense. These ideas bothering some people is more striking
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet @JamesSurowiecki and
You’re bundling lots of things together. Is it important, absolutely. Is it central? Depends on the state probably. It isn’t central to the Californian experience of the American identity for example, for obvious reasons. And you’re just throwing mud suggesting that I’ve said…
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sebastian_Hols @HeerJeet and
…anything which remotely suggests that black people shouldn’t have agency, or that their struggle in the US didn’t have distinct characteristics. You’re just playing the Kendi ‘all opposition to me is racism’ game there.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.