In my idle moments, my mind sometimes turns to the question of CRT. The part of Critical Race Theory that interests me is the word “Theory.”
What, after all, is a “theory?” Is it a mere opinion, or does it rise to the level of knowledge, of science? If it’s an opinion, of course, it must be treated as such—as something to wile away the hours of a pleasant summer afternoon. If it’s something scientific, one must ask, how does one verify it—or disprove it? Are there solid reasons to give it an A? If so, what is it like? Isn’t a “theory” in the scientific sense something that can be proved? Or is merely a doctrine, a dogma?
Take the doctrine/dogma of original sin, as set forth in the fourth century by the great Christian Saint Augustine. What interests me about this doctrine is that it can be used to make certain people feel guilty. I’m thinking of the evangelistic crusades of such American luminaries as the two Billys, Sunday and Graham. I must say that it has always struck me that the point of such crusades is to make members of the audience feel guilty. Is this a point of comparison between the principals who offer those crusades and those who insist on the truth of CRT? Cui bono? Who benefits? And how do they benefit? In the case of the evangelists, do they get to enjoy their power over their subjects?
Another thought. How does CRT deal with the problem that so many blacks are in fact of mixed race? Would it wash in, say, Jamaica? If not, shouldn’t its proponents admit that it can’t possibly be a universal truth?
What, after all, is a “theory?” Is it a mere opinion, or does it rise to the level of knowledge, of science? If it’s an opinion, of course, it must be treated as such—as something to wile away the hours of a pleasant summer afternoon. If it’s something scientific, one must ask, how does one verify it—or disprove it? Are there solid reasons to give it an A? If so, what is it like? Isn’t a “theory” in the scientific sense something that can be proved? Or is merely a doctrine, a dogma?
Take the doctrine/dogma of original sin, as set forth in the fourth century by the great Christian Saint Augustine. What interests me about this doctrine is that it can be used to make certain people feel guilty. I’m thinking of the evangelistic crusades of such American luminaries as the two Billys, Sunday and Graham. I must say that it has always struck me that the point of such crusades is to make members of the audience feel guilty. Is this a point of comparison between the principals who offer those crusades and those who insist on the truth of CRT? Cui bono? Who benefits? And how do they benefit? In the case of the evangelists, do they get to enjoy their power over their subjects?
Another thought. How does CRT deal with the problem that so many blacks are in fact of mixed race? Would it wash in, say, Jamaica? If not, shouldn’t its proponents admit that it can’t possibly be a universal truth?
RSS Feed