Search the Lounge


« Oregon Supreme Court Set to Examine Alternative Pathways to Attorney Licensure | Main | Wash U Law Seeks Faculty »

July 06, 2021


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



Thanks for your response, but, so unfortunately, it is rather typical that you don't apologize for your slinging derogatory ethnic slurs at others: and, no, it is not ok because you used some of those slurs to refer to people you love.

In a recent post, in addition to referring to people as "anglos" and "gringos" you stated: " “Caribbean people have no reservation with embracing emotions, a character-trait I still struggle with in the Anglo-world of U.S. legal academia.” In other words, "anglos" have no ability to embrace emotions? "they" just are not quite as noble and praiseworthy, right?

How is that we have come to a place where a person feels free to explicitly generalize and put other people down like this, on the basis of race and ethnicity, in a public forum, and then pontificate about "implicit bias"? Bizarre. I was intending to respond when you posted those slurs, but, you were commenting on a subject that was controversial for other reasons.

As for your scholarship concerning "US colonial policies," I fear that you are missing the point about cognitive dissonance.

How much have you studied and written about the the “most reprehensible atrocities” committed after Spanish conquistadors arrived in Mexico in 1521, as Lopez Obrador wrote to Pope Francis demanding an apology? What is the legacy of Spanish colonial policies, e.g., the encomienda system? You seem very ready to blame the "anglos" ... Really, sort of ridiculously narrow focus, no?

And, Ediberto, you missed the most important point of all. We don't need CRT theorist to "uncover" the patent, overt racism that thread thru the history of the US. There is nothing wrong with learning about American history, which includes plenty of material for study and plenty of room for constant effort to improve.

But, this study and discussion must also include learning about the efforts over so many centuries of so many good people literally willing to die for the right of others to be free. What people find so offensive about the bigots and racists in the CRT movement (not all, of course, but the vanguard, clearly) is that they pick and choose like lawyers, intending to demonize others.

This is a recipe for endless hostility. I say again: some scholars can use their talents to promote knowledge and understanding; some use their talents to sow doubt and discord to serve causes (usually, to seize power from others).

It is quite obvious to me that the CRT of today seeks to establish a new power structure by tearing apart the very notion of any sense of an American mission to unite people: with the not so concealed purpose to acquire money and power. CRT activists see power possessed by other racial and ethic groups and they want it. Sadly, their notion of acquiring power requires that others be humiliated and stripped of it.

What do you want your efforts as a scholar to accomplish, Ediberto?

Anonymous Bosch

"This targeting of such ideas constitutes a backlash against perceived gains by people of color in the wake of the political developments that began last summer."

This is a self-serving, disingenuous normative characterization. Thanks for it.

"...the broader target of the anti-CRT backlash is clear: any discussion of the country's sordid racial history that moves past some intentional individualist description of racism to identify persistent structural and institutional issues."

Yep, 'cause you're going to entrench racial balkanization otherwise. You need whitey to remain a legal liberal whilst all others adopt intersectional lenses. THAT is CRT's biggest flaw, and shall be the reason for its downfall - at least in the USA. (Scholars in most other countries can already see the superficial identity-will-to-power rhetoric and "critiques" for what they are, and so mostly ignore it). Whitey's going to ask what the hell you're still doing in her settler colony. And when you don't have credible answers, it's going to get very ugly.

There's also a real chance that, in a post-Western hegemony, multicultural norms - concocted by whitey - will just wither away anyhow. Certainly in a PRC-led future...

By the by, do you think the BJP should adopt CRT as a lens by which to best understand the history of Islam in India? Should Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Black Africans, and others undertake intersectional critiques of Sharia more generally? Pray tell, when will these be forthcoming out of American law schools?

Ediberto Roman

Anonprof101, finally was able to turn to the OU video you cite--I found it both interesting and disturbing. Here are my preliminary observations: First, I believe the threat posed in the video cuts both ways. It is therefore troubling from both the left and the right. More importantly, the video does NOT address critical race theory. Like many here and in the podcast I cited in my original post, the detractors of what is purportedly CRT are in fact annoyed with what DEI practitioners evidently engage in, and what Professor Roithmayr refers to in her Federalist debate and in her post above. Thus, detractors of CRT appear to be conflating CRT with diversity training by those that may actually not be knowledgeable of the tenets of CRT. Even if they are---let's focus on CRT and not what detractors want to label is CRT--these detractors are simply missing the point and are directing their angst, frustration, and perhaps anger at the wrong target. Thus, I do not believe the video speaks to the CRT issue.

I also finally got a chance to review the NEA statement (after editing a book proposal and lining up television and radio interviews on the tragic surfside collapse--no rest for the pugnacious). While Scott posted it above as if demonstrates a sweeping damming indictment of CRT, the resolution provides, as Professor Roithmayr observed above, "honest teaching of social studies topics, including truthful and age-appropriate accountings of unpleasant aspects of American history, such as slavery, and the oppression and discrimination of Indigenous, Black, Brown, and other peoples of color, as well as the continued impact this history has on our current society." While the resolution is not an example of CRT, it is an example of an effort to support accurate studies of history. What is so offensive about such an undertaking? And does it perhaps make some so angry?

By the way, was able to look Scott up, I look forward to meeting him one day. Then we can have an open and honest discussion or debate instead of snarky jabs posted in a comment section of a blog (of course, I am being snarky here too). Scott, my invitation to debate you remains open.

Scott Fruehwald

Snarky means "critical or mocking in an indirect or sarcastic way." I was not being snarky. There was no mocking, sarcasm, or indirectedness in what I said. I have not called you angry, questioned your tone, called you biased, or called you snarky, arrogant, or imperial,although you have called me all these things. I have not insulted you in any way.

Everything I have to say is at You can debate what I said there.

Adam Lamparello

Thanks for this interesting post and discussion. I'll offer the following observations:

1. The objections to critical race theory are not really objections to critical race theory per se. Rather, the objections reflect understandable and justifiable objections to the ideologically driven, empirically unsupported, and unquestionably divisive statements in books such as "How to Be an Anti-Racist" and "White Fragility." For example, in these and other books, the authors posit, among other things, that all white people are racist, and that the only way to cure past discrimination is through present discrimination. They espouse racist views and promote dangerous stereotypes. But the authors have sure made millions by promoting this nonsense.

2. The approach of many law schools that preach diversity and inclusion -- each one stumbling over the other to establish itself as the paragon of virtue -- is a joke. Studies show that the vast majority of faculty are liberal. Studies show that these faculties -- you know, those who preach diversity and inclusion -- discriminate against conservatives in the hiring process. I have been in many faculty meetings, and I can state with certainty that discrimination is alive and well -- perpetrated by those who literally trip over themselves to be perceived as champions of diversity. Additionally, studies show that, when drafting answers to exams, students write what they think their professors want to hear based on the professor's ideology. And of course, many schools self-congratulate themselves on being diverse and inclusive while maintaining LSAT medians that mostly disqualify the very people they claim to help. I could go on and on, but I think most people can see the point.

3. Law schools have embraced theories and approaches that ignore facts and science, and that promote ideological agendas. For example, implicit bias and the Implicit Association Test -- the latest fad in legal education -- have been debunked as pseudo-science because they do not reliably predict biased behavior. And, as studies have repeatedly shown, diversity training -- you know, that training taught by ideologically homogenous faculty where diverse (i.e., conservative) perspectives are unwelcome -- has been a failure and exacerbated, rather than alleviated, racial division.

4. Law schools and professors like to embrace buzzwords like "systemic racism," "marginalization," and "disparate impact." But I'd like to know, for example, how these law schools and "professors" define systemic racism. Most importantly, I'd like to know the extent to which law schools and professors meaningfully confront and incorporate into the curriculum evidence that systemic racism no longer exists, and that factors unrelated to racism are responsible for economic inequality (hint: they don't). Take a minute to read former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's report that was issued in 1965 on poverty in the United States. And maybe read the mountain of evidence suggesting that disparate impacts result from factors entirely unrelated to racism. And stop calling everything and everyone "racist." It has rendered the word meaningless.

5. Vague statements claiming that scholars are "attempting to address history in an honest fashion" are laughable. Many professors promote their ideology in the classroom. They condemn alternative perspectives. They misrepresent science and ignore evidence that undercuts their ideological predilections. And given that most faculty are overwhelmingly liberal, the likelihood that history will be addressed in an honest fashion is about as likely as O.J. Simpson finding the "real killer or killers."

My point is that your post, which criticizes the objections to CRT, misses the broader point. The problem is not with critical race theory per se. It is with the unrelenting focus on race and on group identity as the basis on which to stereotype individuals. That is racism. And it is deplorable. It is with elitist "professors" who think that anyone who didn't go to Harvard or Yale is unworthy (yet they claim to champion the marginalized), and who produce scholarship that is unworthy of the paper on which it is printed. It is with the attempt to embrace ideology over science and feelings over facts.

Ediberto Roman

Anon, you protest too much, so much so, it actually surprises me. I do not claim Anglos cannot and do not express emotions. That is just silly. I have and will continue to point out that Anglo-Saxon legal structures and systems, which is actually how I use the term, stress dispassionate legal analysis, whereas such an approach is different than Caribbean cultures in general, which typically do not shy away from engagement that include emotional pleas. Furthermore, the term Gringo is one used by Spanish speakers to refer to a white non-Spanish speaker--I do not know it to be a slur, but will nonetheless examine it. Also. your claim that I "miss the most important point of all" is simply misplaced. I never once asserted CRT is to be studied to the exclusion of other examinations. Indeed, a motivation for CRT was the stories of people was excluded from historical and legal studies. In attempting to prove your point, you question how much I have examined other atrocities, as if my scholarly focus is somehow devalued by focusing on one era or event(s) versus others. Should I seek your approval over what I write about in the future? Obviously, not. These comments are just silly--and they go further and further away from the actual subject of my post--the attacks against CRT are based on claims that are factually flawed---the primary one being CRT is taught in K-12.

I am done responding to this and similar comments. They miss the point, raise odd and obscure claims, and ultimately are more reflective of the commentator's concern over accurate teachings of history (occurring in law school--despite protests to the contrary) than anything else. So, have at it. I will continue to write and perhaps you and others will continue to be annoyed. ;)

David Bernstein

What's unclear to me after this entire thread is this: if critics of absurd, racist DEI training, D'Angelo adn Kendi being required reading in public school, historically inaccurate revisionism a la the 1619 Project, and so on, but did not call it CRT, would Ediberto's objection (a) disappear; (b) be significantly lessened; or (c) be exactly the same, beyond dropping the objection about distorting CRT?


Wow. What a dodge!!!

Ediberto, your responses to my comments and those of Scott above are uncharacteristically shallow and poorly framed; perhaps you are too busy with your media appearances to write coherently: if so, maybe you should get a good night sleep before posting stuff that is really quite light.)

I'll just pick one of the troubling aspect of your response. You like to throw around ethnic slurs like "gringo." You deny. Perhaps you've heard of something called "the google": "considered an offensive term in some Spanish-speaking countries"; "The[] term can be merely descriptive, derogatory, or friendly depending on the context and situation." Ediberto, we know the context and how you were using the term: to put people down and insult and ridicule them.

Another one of your favorites is "anglo." As distinguished from what? You say, "Anglo-Saxon legal structures and systems, which is actually how I use the term, stress dispassionate legal analysis, whereas such an approach is different than Caribbean cultures in general." Actually, that isn't how you used it: you used to mock the way people dance, what they choose to drink at parties, and their expression of emotions and family ties (the latter being particularly disgusting).

But, leaving that aside, "Caribbean" culture, Ediberto? Are you really disclaiming the status as claimed in your recent piece? When you say "Anglo" you seem to refer to the descendants of one European colonial power that you find great fault with. You, and other CRT theorists, obviously think there is something inherently racist in the legacy structures of the "Anglo" world.

Why are you incapable of examining the legacy structures that were the legacy of another European colonial power? Those structures (such as they are) and that legacy is far more consequential for the people you call by a different name: because they speak Spanish and have Spanish sounding names? Why do you not demand from those you perceive to be the descendants of the Spanish oppressors the guilt and shame and humiliation that you seem to see as appropriate for those who appear to be the descendants of the "Anglo" colonists? Because Spain is long gone but England isn't? (All this is really CRT bs and nonsense, but, let's take the CRT argument as we find it and refer to the leftist's official guide to racial and ethnic divisions and hatreds for guidance in this discussion).

Please. The legacy of Spain's dysfunctional colonialism lives on today in this hemisphere. But, you seem to ignore this issue. Why not demand the same study of the atrocities in this country perpetrated by Spain?

What are YOUR implicit biases, Ediberto?

I'm not telling you what to write about. I'm noticing the glaring tell in what you choose to say, and how you say it. I don't like it when people, in a public forum, throw around ethnic slurs and insult the culture and mores of other groups. You seem to think it is just fine to do that, as long as you are teh one doing it.

Can YOU see in yourself what you want others to see about themselves? So much of "CRT" is just this: an excuse to hurl invective at other groups and demand power.

Daria Roithmayr

David Bernstein's question is an interesting one. With one or two exceptions, none of the anti-CRT bills actually mention CRT, but instead describe particular arguments about racism that are banned. In those states that have passed bans, teachers arguably could not teach about: (i) the existence of racial disparities in health care, housing, employment, wealth, incarceration etc (violates the ban on teaching about white advantage/privilege) (ii) the country's history of using property law rules like "acquisition based on conquest" to clear indigenous communities from the Mississippi Valley to make way for white cotton growers (violates the ban on teach about the power relationships that lie behind the rule of law and maybe the ban on holding a race "responsible" for past actions); (iii) the importance of 1619 as the year in which the first enslaved Africans arrived in colonial Virginia (violates the ban on the 1619 project); (iv) the racialized history of college admissions categories that prioritize the "well rounded" applicant over those who excel on grades alone (violates the ban on critiques of meritocracy). The bans are vague enough that at the very least, they open the door for arguments that teaching these ideas violate the bans, and they chill teaching about these quite well-accepted facts and histories. As an earlier commenter points out, the bans may well be unconstitutional because they arguably infringe on free speech, which the GOP used to favor. But the bans also are part of the more general backlash against post BLM gains--against moves in public education to teach a fuller history of the US, to examine the contours of racial disparity, to question the rules that govern meritocracy and property distribution, etc. The text of the bans targets much more than CRT per se. Even if CRT had never been mentioned as part of the bans' justifying rhetoric, we critical race theorists would have had MUCH to say about this backlash.

Anonymous Bosch

Not even close, let alone "arguably".

You also don't get to invoke the indigenous people and then insinuate that the 1619 Project has any credibility. 1610 Antedates 1619, for example. America's original sin isn't the one the American media and that project's founders keep hammering on about.

Nor do the anti-vilification rules proscribe questioning the rules about meritocracy and property distribution. Indeed, they're perfectly compatible with questioning the very validity of the law-creating institutions and the perpetuation of the USA as a going concern. They're also compatible along with scrutinizing the concepts, motives, and claims of right & justice advanced by scholarly movements which engage in "critique" of the system's rules even though they've not a leg to stand on in terms of justifying their continued presence in the country. For example, could you imagine if, for even one moment, you CRT charlatans actually applied the Indeterminacy Thesis to your own core norms? Where you ceased to (feign to) be moral formalists?

Scott Fruehwald

This headline and article in the New York Post illustrates your problem: "Critical race theory author headlines AFT conference on educating kids." Everyone who reads the Post now thinks that Ibram X. Kendi is a critical race theorist. I thought Ibram X. Kendi was an antiracist rather than a critical race theorist, but that is not what this headline is saying.

As a couple of posts have noted above, if CRT wants to end the attack on CRT, it must define the field and disavow scholars like Kendi. They also need to tell the world that antiracism, the IAT, microaggressions theory, white fragility, etc. are not part of CRT. As long as CRT is associated with Kendi, you are going to continue to be criticized in the popular press.

Ediberto Roman

Anon, I promised I would not continue with what has become absurd, namely, the comments concerning a post I made addressing the attacks on CRT. However, your recent personal attacks force me to respond. First, in-high brow fashion, you suggest I am too busy being a some sort of celebrity (no need to be jealous of anything, trust me), then you state I get some sleep, then you ask if I have ever heard of Google. Really? Don't be so petty. I know who you are, by the way.

Then, you to take the mantle of victimhood by mischaracterizing a post I made a few weeks ago concerning the film, In the Heights. While you characterized what I said in the most negative light possible, you did not actually use the quotes, nor did you attempt to place them their true context, other than with a sophomoric attack. I, unlike you, address the facts here. Your attempt to prove otherwise is inaccurate, irresponsible, and frankly reprehensible. Despite your accusation, I did NOT refer to "Gringos" in any negative light, including not being able to dance or anything of the sort, as you suggested. I made the point, without referring to the term "Gringos," that at the school where I first attended college, the term "party" was different than what I had grown accustomed to growing up in a largely minority community in NYC. The only reference to the word "Gringo" was mention of my sons, because they do not speak Spanish, and to poke fun of myself and the classic shorter and smaller stature of my people---Specifically, I mentioned how I stopped playing college football in part because my white counterparts were massive individuals--it was not a slight, and your efforts at characterizing it as such is dishonest. Here is what I wrote:

"Much like Nina in the film, when I moved away I carried with me the beautiful dreams so many family members and neighbors held, it weighed heavy on me--but one learns to get by. After not fully embracing the private school life--with so-called parties where no one danced and everyone was drunk, where the music was largely terrible and could not be danced to, where fun seemed to be watching and avoiding college wrestlers getting drunk and picking fight with larger football players--just too weird for me.  I eventually transferred from the snooty place--I was the only student of color not on an affirmative action scholarship which actually made be more isolated, and I was on the school's football team that had no Latinos and only one or two blacks (who were older and stars; I was a walk-on that had to "dress" in a basement--a football right of passage)--But I quickly learned I loved the wrong sport; those Gringos were giants--I should have tried baseball (sadly, I couldn't see, let alone hit, a curveball)."

Referring to white football players as giants, though using the term "Gringos," was simply not an insult. You also conveniently failed to mention I used the term "Gringo" when referencing to my own children: "I could not even get my Gringo sons to finish viewing it..." I would never use a slur to refer to the most important people in my life. How could you make such an accusation?

Then you proceed to ramble on in an incoherent fashion about Spain and England and some fault on my part--if any of us needs some sleep, you would certainly be part of that club. Perhaps you were just venting???

In any case, I would appreciate it if in the future, your comments concerning one of my a post focuses on the post.



You have become angry with me and with Scott and perhaps others. So, it is time to shut this thread down. I would just urge you to think a bit about labeling and generalizing about others, and how your attitudes might be felt them. And, then broaden that analysis to critical thinking about the theme of CRT - selective vilification of certain races and ethnicities while excusing others - and ask whether "justice" demands that the entire picture be painted fairly.

Daria Roithmayr

Anon Bosch, you argue that the legislation is sufficiently clear so as to allow the things I listed, including teaching about the racial history of meritocratic standards in colleges and the power struggle over property law in the context of the launch of the US cotton economy. But your saying it doesn't make it so. And a federal judge, ruling on the language that appears in all of these state bills, disagrees with you regarding the language's clarity and constitutionality. This judge, ruling on the language when it appeared in the Trump executive order, held that the language was likely void for vagueness and unconstitutional, in no small part because it did not clearly define what conduct was prohibited. The court also ruled that the government's explanations and definitions made matters worse not better. The opinion supports my central point that these bills are problematic because of the discussions they chill, owing to their lack of clarity. I found the rest of your post cryptic and full of specious assertions, like the assertion that because the US is guilty also of indigenous genocide that slavery isn't an original sin worth "hammering on about." A first-year logic student would spot the flaw in that argument. One last thing. In my CRT class, we discuss at length the critiques of CRT offered by folks like Richard Posner, Dan Farber, Suzanna Sherry and others. We discuss the critiques of implicit bias (offered by folks who are actually empirical scholars, unlike Brian Leiter). I posted my syllabus above and am happy to send you a copy personally. I am sure you would learn much. Indeed, one of the CRT critics, after our debate on the Federalist Society, reached out to ask me for a copy. I'd be happy to tutor you in CRT and in Logic as well! ;-)

Adam Lamparello

I'll just offer one point that renders much of this discussion moot. Children, regardless of race, who are raised by two parents who stress particular values, such as hard work, resilience, grit, responsibility, and self-discipline, are overwhelmingly successful. Young people of all races should read Thomas Sowell and listen to the inspiring graduation speech by Denzel Washington. In sum, your choices, not your circumstances, determine your destiny.



That isn't always true. "Pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" wasn't a truism for the enslaved.

Discrimination by law was real, to some extents it still is, and the lingering effects of it persist and disadvantage millions of people. Those obstacles are real, and can't be dismissed by just saying "Hey, I made it, and you can too if you behave properly, like I did."

What the "CRT" movement of today (this isn't CRT, as most have realized, but something else using that label to legitimize hate) doesn't realize is that injustice doesn't justify hating "white people" (of whatever European derivative) and that truth of inequities in society doesn't justify teaching our people that some races are inherently racist and evil.

Those dirty lies are poisoning America and American culture.

THere are those who are so accustomed to hating America and "white people" (that is, the descendants of certain European countries) that they no longer hear themselves or understand their own attitudes as exemplifying what they are supposedly against.

CRT started as a worthy effort to uncover latent biases and prejudices embedded in the law. Now, it is a tool wielded by some true haters (so hateful that they no longer even realize their attitudes are hateful) to acquire power by attempting to undermine the notion of America as an ideal for all people of the world to come together.

These ever-so-noble folks don't want to work toward that future: they just want to insult and threaten others and try to humiliate "white" people to gain power by default.

It really is a sad thing we are seeing the unraveling of the American ideal in real time by reason of the failure of the American academy, especially the legal academy, to use some rational thought and avoid supporting race baiting for teh sake of virtue signaling.

A law prof who signals racial or ethnic hatred, or who impliedly threatens others for expressing ideas or criticism of ideas, is not signaling virtue.

Scott Fruehwald


I would love to read your syllabus, but your link isn't working.

Adam Lamparello has written an excellent article on what's wrong with the IAT test. He does a great job of summarizing the science. The only conclusion that one can draw from his article is that no one should be applying the IAT test to anyone until there is fuller testing. The article is to appear in the Journal of the Legal Profession, but you can currently find it on his SSRN page.

Bobert McRobertson

There have to be at least 100 utterly ridiculous statements in this thread already, but I have to pick on these, from a couple posts up, in particular:

"injustice doesn't justify hating 'white people'"
"inequities in society [don't] justify teaching our people that some races are inherently racist and evil."
"[CRT] is a tool wielded by some true haters ... to acquire power by attempting to undermine the notion of America as an ideal..."
"we are seeing the unraveling of the American ideal in real time by reason of the failure of the American academy, especially the legal academy, to use some rational thought and avoid supporting race baiting for teh sake of virtue signaling."

What voices are advocating for the hatred of white people as a response to injustice? Who is teaching anyone that some races are inherently evil? What does it even mean to "acquire power by attempting to undermine the notion of America as an ideal"? And isn't it rather childish to pretend that the America we actually live in has actually fully lived up to those ideals? How on earth is the legal academy -- and a niche element thereof in particular -- powerful enough to cause the "unraveling of the American ideal"? What race baiting? What virtue signaling? What does any of this have to do with CRT?

Again, this is just an incredibly ridiculous discourse. Just pulling nonsense out of thin air, and conflating a bunch of unrelated strawman with a tiny subset of legal scholars. It's like a Chewbacca defense in defense of...what? Pretending that racism isn't that bad? Generating a moral panic to help elect Republicans? Projecting some sort of pent up anger that's been marinating since your first employer made you sit through a tedious diversity presentation when you were younger?

I continue to not get it.

Anonymous Bosch


You don't get to have it both ways. You don't invoke the Indeterminacy Thesis, crit views about judicial decision-making, and then pretend that what the judge did in the VERY case you cite was REALLY establish the law's vagueness, rather than use such language to simply advance a thinly veiled political agenda.

Relatedly, consider your own syllabus here: CRT "concedes" the Indeterminacy Thesis to CLS - a thesis that is demonstrably FALSE, by the way, as Duncan Kennedy has himself begrudgingly half-admitted - but then perpetuates rights discourses because of the rhetorical potency. Do you understand that that's idiotic and disingenuous, or must one flesh things out in terms of the "contradictions" inherent in CRT dogma for you to pay attention? Do you not see that there's no discernible reason why moral or social norms, or your preferred legal alternative norms, would be subject to the same difficulty if the thesis is true? And since you aim for your interlocutors to believe that you either believe that thesis, or at least find it useful to advance for strategic reasons, why they hell would they lend any credence to your proffered alternatives - since they'd be NOTHING more than cheap veneers for your prejudices? In part, they'd need some higher-order reason to think the concept of the rule of law is passed its sell date.

I noted that the original sin is stealing Indian land, not slavery. It's both the temporally and logically prior sin. (In the contemporary jargon, claiming that slavery is America's ORIGINAL sin is a form of cultural erasure). It's thus YOU who would benefit from a first-order logic class. There's a reason why most philosophy departments deem critical theory to be sophomoric bunk; of course, your American JD taught you both "critical reasoning skills" and how to be a scholar... (Additionally, could you imagine if Crits actually deconstructed the concept of "a contradiction"?).

You have no right to socialize/nationalize what is ultimately indigenous lands and resources. Any law passed, whether in Washington DC or in Sacramento, is settler colonial law. It doesn't matter how many non-white, non-straight, non-cisgendered Jacobins you put into office. Moreover, all your talk about different views about rules about property distribution is a form of rationalization of your continued interest to live on stolen land, to legitimize your presence of living in a system entirely devised by whitey, because your life is better in the USA than it would be elsewhere. In other words, you continue to live on the land solely out of rational self-interest, and your claims of "social justice" - belied by your championing the importation of millions of unskilled illiterate labourers whilst the American middle class shrinks and its poor get poorer, in defiance of everything the left ever fought for - are merely a veneer for that. The explanation for all of this, in turn, is simple: ressentiment.

So, you can continue with your self-promotion on this blog (in the finest of American capitalist traditions), but in no sense are you a genuine epistemic, moral, or even legal authority.



Apparently, you aren't following the discourse that is being peddled night and day under the guise of "CRT." And, if you don't understand efforts to destroy the foundational notions of a society in order to "transform" it (read much history, Bobert?), then I would say, you are so right! You just don't get it.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad