Before I commented on the controversy about "critical race theory," I wanted to understand what it was. Now that I'm better informed, let me summarize in a nutshell: Critical race theory argues that racism is not just a matter of conscious personal racial biases. Rather, because racism has been such a prevalent force in our society si…
Before I commented on the controversy about "critical race theory," I wanted to understand what it was. Now that I'm better informed, let me summarize in a nutshell: Critical race theory argues that racism is not just a matter of conscious personal racial biases. Rather, because racism has been such a prevalent force in our society since it's inception, it is "baked into" laws and institutional structures of our society in ways that people do not always perceive, and that were not always intended, although the recent changes in electoral laws which, by the way, are a perfect illustration of critical race theory, are clearly intended to be racist. The laws can proclaim themselves to be race "neutral," just as did the literacy requirements for voting in the 19th century. But if the authors of such laws are well-aware that they will impact people of color more than whites, as was the case with the literacy requirements, as more blacks than whites were illiterate in 19th-century America, the laws are racist. In fact, they are racist even if the authors of such laws don't understand their disproportional impact on people of color. In other words, laws and institutions can be racist without mentioning race.
And while I'm at it, let me explain what it means to be "woke." The term denotes awareness of how race impacts everyone's life in America. I should add that to me, one should be "woke" to class and gender as well. In other words, I am aware that as a white woman, I have enjoyed privileges, including better treatment in public spaces, because of my skin color. If I had any doubts about that, my romantic relationships with black men over the years, beginning when I was 19 years old in college, made that startlingly clear to me. I have taken for granted over the years privileges that others have not enjoyed. Similarly, as a woman, I have been aware that men could do things - including, in 1980s France for example, open a checking account - that were much harder for women. When I began teaching at a university, institutional and implicit gender bias was rife everywhere, and I am sure this was also true of racial bias, although at the time I was not really aware of it. (Thank goodness my university has made immense strides since then.) If you are a poor kid and cannot get to the library because it's been relocated to a prosperous suburb, how can you take advantage of that public service? If you are gay and risk physical attack in some locations for holding hands with your lover or spouse, that impacts your life. There are many ways in which race, class, and gender determine the course of our lives. If you can't access books as a child, you are disadvantaged in applying for college. If you can't be with your significant other in public, you may feel compelled to turn down a good job offer in a location where people of your sexual orientation face violence in public. Critical race theory argues that these inequalities are institutionalized in our society.
Being "woke" simply means that you have become aware of this reality. The purpose is not to make people feel guilty or bad about themselves. I didn't ask to be born white or female. I didn't ask for the privileges the former afforded me any more than I asked for the benefits or difficulties the latter created for me. But if one is not aware of the institutional inequalities in our society, how can one take action to remedy them? That is the point of critical race theory, and of being "woke." It means that if we do not wake up, not only will our society continue to be unequal, but it will also be riven with racial, gender and class conflict.
The unequal laws we are passing now will have ramifications for generations to come, and will be a source of conflict in our society long after we are gone. And they will create two Americas, one of white privilege in states that, ironically, will become economically poorer and more backward businesses and educated individuals migrate to more progressive states. Those passing these laws are not doing themselves or their fellow citizens any favors.
The point about critical race theory or being "woke" is not to "wake up" to punish oneself or others. It's not about vengeance, although there are doubtless some angry folks who give that impression. It is about change and, ironically, in the long run, REDUCING CONFLICT in our society and world. That is what so many folks miss about calls for social justice. Much, probably most, of the conflict in our world derives from inequality and injustice, from folks who want more at the expense of others. We neither need nor will ever achieve perfect equality in our world. But to the extent we can work toward social justice and equal opportunity, at least, to that extent we can reduce conflict. It's going to become harder, not easier, to achieve social justice in the coming decades, due in large part to the immense pressures we are putting on our environment and natural resources. As is true of many things, climate change will impact the poor and people of color more than the rich. But social justice is not only a good in and of itself. It is in the self-interest of everyone, because it reduces conflict and less conflict creates the conditions for greater prosperity and wellbeing for everyone.
So my message here is very simple: wake up and work toward a more just and peaceful world, for you and for your descendants. You can't have prosperity without peace, and you can't have peace without social justice unless, as was said of the Romans, you are willing to make a desert and call it peace.
Excellent! A question always lingers for me: Why can't the Democrat leadership get with it and reply to the Repub distortions over CRT? The R's are poisoning the well, so to speak, so thoroughly that a proper understanding of all this will be impossible. IMHO.
Democrats need to take responsibility too for not clearly and powerfully presenting our vision. Milley gave us an excellent example of a compelling rebuttal. Now we need to hear this message again and again and again from every Democrat at every opportunity. Being correct gets us nowhere if we aren’t willing to craft powerful talking points and hammer them in daily. We must be unified and relentless.
This is the essence of reframing the narrative. As Common Cause and other progressive groups are doing, it's important to use our access to social media (for those of us who choose to participate beyond this forum) to put out positive and affirming messages, rather than arguing using the terms the right brands us with. And on such subjects as CRT and socialism, we need to take back those terms and make sure we are clear about the benefits to us as a nation to be critical about our history and our present, and to continue to support and build programs that benefit all of society. There is nothing disturbingly radical or revolutionary about loving our neighbors as ourselves - which is the basis of both CRT and socialism to my simplistically inclined mind.
Agreed! And Dems are neither unified or relentless. They have not learned a thing. And they can't convey what I would call "central values'. What is the POSITIVE reason for access to voting---although access by minority voters is essential, that is NOT the essential reason for needing access to voting---it is a cornerstone of democracy for all. Where is that message that might reach across the "great divide"?
Not that I am certain, but Pres. Biden seems to deliberately ignore the rants from the right, because it's like responding to a child's tantrum. It just keeps upping the behavior. But I am also anxious. There are at least 2 separate narratives in our body politic, and the more outrageous the behavior the more fans it has. Sort of like "the squeaky wheel gets the grease."
Here is an article that discusses "woke" and how the word is used/misused/misappropriated. Regardless of our penchant for the use of proper language it helps to understand the context of a word prior to determining whether or not it is poor English.
I don't know off the top of my head where the term "woke" originated. But maybe part of being "woke" or "awakened" or "aware" or whatever word you want to use is to have an understanding that the way most traditionally educated Americans think of "good or poor English" is in itself a narrow , privileged person's judgement of language usage. There are many regional and cultural variations of English language use, as there are with other languages, and to criticize others' use that is different from what we learned can be seen as a form of racism. I imagine the British thought the Americans corrupted the English language quite a bit too. Who's to say what's right or wrong? More important that we aim to understand and be understood despite these normal variations.
This was the view I took as an English language teacher. Although I taught the prescriptive grammar in the textbooks we used, I also introduced descriptive grammar - which follows the way words are actually used outside the classroom. I once had a visiting Japanese professor sit in on a grammar class who (politely) objected to how I was teaching past tense(s). Rather than agree or disagree with his view of correctness, I explained to the class that they would hear many Americans use grammar not used in the textbook and that they should be prepared to understand the intended meaning when they heard something they hadn't learned in class. I also said that while I tried to use the textbook grammar in class, they would probably hear me use different forms if they overheard me speaking with family members or old friends. I then had them talk about variations from correct grammar in the ways they use their own first languages. After the class, I thanked the visiting professor for bringing up a good topic of discussion. I don't think I changed his mind about what is correct, but I think he understood why I was teaching grammar in my own particular way.
Thanks for reposting this. I saw it below after I had made my comment. Comments show up in such a weird order here! At least for me, no matter which way I have my settings.
Hm. While I disagree from a descriptive grammar standpoint that there is a problem using the term "woke" in the way it is used to describe a state of awareness, I do feel uncomfortable saying it to describe myself or anyone else. I'm 66, white and, though not completely staid and out of touch, have also never been or aspired to be hip. For me, using this word would be a combination of cultural appropriation and an effort to appear something I'm not. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't aspire to that very state of awareness.
Ahhhh, dear Marcy. Good morning. Finally something in this forum said about “woke” that I thought the very first time I heard it. You do not say what you think it suggests about race. Can you elaborate?
Familiar with the article. It makes me wince to hear it come out of mouths that use the word to weaponize attitudes about political division. Most people that use this word have absolutely no idea about the origin of its use and would be shocked to hear how they label themselves using the term in a sarcastic, derisive manner. They turn upon themselves.
Wow! Thank you for putting this out here. I usually make the assumption that all of us on this forum would agree with the importance of CRT in understanding where we are in this moment of history, and I think we do - but we don't all have the ability to lay it out as clearly as you have done, connecting it so well to the effects on so much beyond "race". It saddens and appals me that voices like yours are being silenced in educational institutions in the name of "intellectual diversity".
Wonderful! Touches all the bases! Followers of this daily "Letter from an American" already know that we must "work toward a more just and peaceful world," as this comment beautifully concludes. But we need leadership to accomplish that. Otherwise, as I stated earlier, way, way, down in this posting, hours ago, we are just "whistling in the dark." One of you responded that we had better be whistling loudly, even in the dark, to accomplish anything. So I quoted the bard of Freehold, NJ, Bruce Springsteen, in reply: "You can't start a fire, You can't start a fire without a spark, This gun's for hire, Even if we're just dancin' in the dark." WE NEED A SPARK. Whistling ain't enough.
Before I commented on the controversy about "critical race theory," I wanted to understand what it was. Now that I'm better informed, let me summarize in a nutshell: Critical race theory argues that racism is not just a matter of conscious personal racial biases. Rather, because racism has been such a prevalent force in our society since it's inception, it is "baked into" laws and institutional structures of our society in ways that people do not always perceive, and that were not always intended, although the recent changes in electoral laws which, by the way, are a perfect illustration of critical race theory, are clearly intended to be racist. The laws can proclaim themselves to be race "neutral," just as did the literacy requirements for voting in the 19th century. But if the authors of such laws are well-aware that they will impact people of color more than whites, as was the case with the literacy requirements, as more blacks than whites were illiterate in 19th-century America, the laws are racist. In fact, they are racist even if the authors of such laws don't understand their disproportional impact on people of color. In other words, laws and institutions can be racist without mentioning race.
And while I'm at it, let me explain what it means to be "woke." The term denotes awareness of how race impacts everyone's life in America. I should add that to me, one should be "woke" to class and gender as well. In other words, I am aware that as a white woman, I have enjoyed privileges, including better treatment in public spaces, because of my skin color. If I had any doubts about that, my romantic relationships with black men over the years, beginning when I was 19 years old in college, made that startlingly clear to me. I have taken for granted over the years privileges that others have not enjoyed. Similarly, as a woman, I have been aware that men could do things - including, in 1980s France for example, open a checking account - that were much harder for women. When I began teaching at a university, institutional and implicit gender bias was rife everywhere, and I am sure this was also true of racial bias, although at the time I was not really aware of it. (Thank goodness my university has made immense strides since then.) If you are a poor kid and cannot get to the library because it's been relocated to a prosperous suburb, how can you take advantage of that public service? If you are gay and risk physical attack in some locations for holding hands with your lover or spouse, that impacts your life. There are many ways in which race, class, and gender determine the course of our lives. If you can't access books as a child, you are disadvantaged in applying for college. If you can't be with your significant other in public, you may feel compelled to turn down a good job offer in a location where people of your sexual orientation face violence in public. Critical race theory argues that these inequalities are institutionalized in our society.
Being "woke" simply means that you have become aware of this reality. The purpose is not to make people feel guilty or bad about themselves. I didn't ask to be born white or female. I didn't ask for the privileges the former afforded me any more than I asked for the benefits or difficulties the latter created for me. But if one is not aware of the institutional inequalities in our society, how can one take action to remedy them? That is the point of critical race theory, and of being "woke." It means that if we do not wake up, not only will our society continue to be unequal, but it will also be riven with racial, gender and class conflict.
The unequal laws we are passing now will have ramifications for generations to come, and will be a source of conflict in our society long after we are gone. And they will create two Americas, one of white privilege in states that, ironically, will become economically poorer and more backward businesses and educated individuals migrate to more progressive states. Those passing these laws are not doing themselves or their fellow citizens any favors.
The point about critical race theory or being "woke" is not to "wake up" to punish oneself or others. It's not about vengeance, although there are doubtless some angry folks who give that impression. It is about change and, ironically, in the long run, REDUCING CONFLICT in our society and world. That is what so many folks miss about calls for social justice. Much, probably most, of the conflict in our world derives from inequality and injustice, from folks who want more at the expense of others. We neither need nor will ever achieve perfect equality in our world. But to the extent we can work toward social justice and equal opportunity, at least, to that extent we can reduce conflict. It's going to become harder, not easier, to achieve social justice in the coming decades, due in large part to the immense pressures we are putting on our environment and natural resources. As is true of many things, climate change will impact the poor and people of color more than the rich. But social justice is not only a good in and of itself. It is in the self-interest of everyone, because it reduces conflict and less conflict creates the conditions for greater prosperity and wellbeing for everyone.
So my message here is very simple: wake up and work toward a more just and peaceful world, for you and for your descendants. You can't have prosperity without peace, and you can't have peace without social justice unless, as was said of the Romans, you are willing to make a desert and call it peace.
Such a powerful and clear explanation of these two terms. Thank you for taking the time and putting so much thought into this. ❤️
Yes gkbrunelle, great clear explanation of how you perceive these problems/concepts. Thank you!
Bravo, great explanation
Excellent! A question always lingers for me: Why can't the Democrat leadership get with it and reply to the Repub distortions over CRT? The R's are poisoning the well, so to speak, so thoroughly that a proper understanding of all this will be impossible. IMHO.
Democrats need to take responsibility too for not clearly and powerfully presenting our vision. Milley gave us an excellent example of a compelling rebuttal. Now we need to hear this message again and again and again from every Democrat at every opportunity. Being correct gets us nowhere if we aren’t willing to craft powerful talking points and hammer them in daily. We must be unified and relentless.
This is the essence of reframing the narrative. As Common Cause and other progressive groups are doing, it's important to use our access to social media (for those of us who choose to participate beyond this forum) to put out positive and affirming messages, rather than arguing using the terms the right brands us with. And on such subjects as CRT and socialism, we need to take back those terms and make sure we are clear about the benefits to us as a nation to be critical about our history and our present, and to continue to support and build programs that benefit all of society. There is nothing disturbingly radical or revolutionary about loving our neighbors as ourselves - which is the basis of both CRT and socialism to my simplistically inclined mind.
Truth is usually quite simple; it’s lies that are complicated.
I would say, Lanita, simple and sophisticated.
Agreed! And Dems are neither unified or relentless. They have not learned a thing. And they can't convey what I would call "central values'. What is the POSITIVE reason for access to voting---although access by minority voters is essential, that is NOT the essential reason for needing access to voting---it is a cornerstone of democracy for all. Where is that message that might reach across the "great divide"?
My message is collapse the divide. It is fake and based on an imposed reality with no merit, compassion, or abundance.
Not that I am certain, but Pres. Biden seems to deliberately ignore the rants from the right, because it's like responding to a child's tantrum. It just keeps upping the behavior. But I am also anxious. There are at least 2 separate narratives in our body politic, and the more outrageous the behavior the more fans it has. Sort of like "the squeaky wheel gets the grease."
This is "my favourite thing" I have read today. Thanks for stating it all so clearly and eloquently!
Thank you for this excellent explanation. It should be published widely. May we quote you?
Certainly!
Being "woke" is to use very poor English and I think it behooves folks to be awakened.
Here is an article that discusses "woke" and how the word is used/misused/misappropriated. Regardless of our penchant for the use of proper language it helps to understand the context of a word prior to determining whether or not it is poor English.
https://www.vox.com/culture/21437879/stay-woke-wokeness-history-origin-evolution-controversy
I don't know off the top of my head where the term "woke" originated. But maybe part of being "woke" or "awakened" or "aware" or whatever word you want to use is to have an understanding that the way most traditionally educated Americans think of "good or poor English" is in itself a narrow , privileged person's judgement of language usage. There are many regional and cultural variations of English language use, as there are with other languages, and to criticize others' use that is different from what we learned can be seen as a form of racism. I imagine the British thought the Americans corrupted the English language quite a bit too. Who's to say what's right or wrong? More important that we aim to understand and be understood despite these normal variations.
This was the view I took as an English language teacher. Although I taught the prescriptive grammar in the textbooks we used, I also introduced descriptive grammar - which follows the way words are actually used outside the classroom. I once had a visiting Japanese professor sit in on a grammar class who (politely) objected to how I was teaching past tense(s). Rather than agree or disagree with his view of correctness, I explained to the class that they would hear many Americans use grammar not used in the textbook and that they should be prepared to understand the intended meaning when they heard something they hadn't learned in class. I also said that while I tried to use the textbook grammar in class, they would probably hear me use different forms if they overheard me speaking with family members or old friends. I then had them talk about variations from correct grammar in the ways they use their own first languages. After the class, I thanked the visiting professor for bringing up a good topic of discussion. I don't think I changed his mind about what is correct, but I think he understood why I was teaching grammar in my own particular way.
https://www.vox.com/culture/21437879/stay-woke-wokeness-history-origin-evolution-controversy
This should help define the current use of the word with regard to social justice.
Thanks for reposting this. I saw it below after I had made my comment. Comments show up in such a weird order here! At least for me, no matter which way I have my settings.
Beth, comments show up in weird order for me as well. I think it's gremlins living in Substack Land.
Oh! Thanks for this Daria.
Thank you so much for putting this link here. Great article.
My pleasure.
Language is dynamic
Indeed! Is there a real difference between "woke", "awakened", "saved", or "born again"?
Um, actually, all those words, taken in current cultural context, have very different meanings.
True, and "seeing the light" comes in many contexts. Ah-ha! Eureka! Duhh. Ouch! Oops! Oh what a goose I am!
You make me smile!
William, this is a prime example of what white folks do to BIPOC culture. We can't wait to white-wash it.
Do you think the word “woke” is not only poor English except in some past tense cases, but is intended to connote race?
Yes, perhaps! And to make such distinctions via terminology does nothing towards inclusivity.
Further, while it may indeed be a rallying call for POC, perhaps this is a case where folks should avoid cultural appropriation.
Hm. While I disagree from a descriptive grammar standpoint that there is a problem using the term "woke" in the way it is used to describe a state of awareness, I do feel uncomfortable saying it to describe myself or anyone else. I'm 66, white and, though not completely staid and out of touch, have also never been or aspired to be hip. For me, using this word would be a combination of cultural appropriation and an effort to appear something I'm not. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't aspire to that very state of awareness.
Precisely framed! I concur (emphasis on cur)
Ahhhh, dear Marcy. Good morning. Finally something in this forum said about “woke” that I thought the very first time I heard it. You do not say what you think it suggests about race. Can you elaborate?
Please see link under William's original comment.
Familiar with the article. It makes me wince to hear it come out of mouths that use the word to weaponize attitudes about political division. Most people that use this word have absolutely no idea about the origin of its use and would be shocked to hear how they label themselves using the term in a sarcastic, derisive manner. They turn upon themselves.
Brava! I hope you publish this far and wide.
Indeed!
Agree!
thank you!!
Wow! Thank you for putting this out here. I usually make the assumption that all of us on this forum would agree with the importance of CRT in understanding where we are in this moment of history, and I think we do - but we don't all have the ability to lay it out as clearly as you have done, connecting it so well to the effects on so much beyond "race". It saddens and appals me that voices like yours are being silenced in educational institutions in the name of "intellectual diversity".
Thanks for a cogent and correct statement. I'd like to copy it and share it. Maybe you have shared it already or kept it at least. Publish it.
Yes, please do
Thanks for this fabulous explanation of CRT.
Well said! Is it possible to copy this to give it broader access? Thank you.
Certainly!
Copied and posted your 1st paragraph. Thank You.
So grateful for this clear picture
Wonderful! Touches all the bases! Followers of this daily "Letter from an American" already know that we must "work toward a more just and peaceful world," as this comment beautifully concludes. But we need leadership to accomplish that. Otherwise, as I stated earlier, way, way, down in this posting, hours ago, we are just "whistling in the dark." One of you responded that we had better be whistling loudly, even in the dark, to accomplish anything. So I quoted the bard of Freehold, NJ, Bruce Springsteen, in reply: "You can't start a fire, You can't start a fire without a spark, This gun's for hire, Even if we're just dancin' in the dark." WE NEED A SPARK. Whistling ain't enough.
Thank you so much for this explanation.
Thank you, gk, I needed this explanation. Much appreciated