Perhaps this is another area where the name is problematic for idiots.
A friend of mine has complained that the name is unfortunate, just something about it. I pointed out to him that there is "critical theory," in general, so, when that particular scholarship is focused on race, calling it "critical race theory" is a natural.
I don't know what they teach kids about history these days. (Seemingly not much based on the dumb comments so many people make.) I recall learning in school about the horrors of the passage, Sally Hemmings, families being sold apart, whipping, and the 40 acres renege and the KKK and Jim Crow, which was still in place at the time. Did they stop teaching all that when I wasn't looking? If not, then I'm not sure what it is whitey wants to avoid his kids being taught. There's more in history beyond what I learned as a kid, more examples that could be inserted in the curriculum, more, but not necessarily different or worse. So, re content, I don't know what the marginal difference is in terms of threat to the identity of white kids that would warrant the reaction this is getting. Now, the "structural" focus is new, and the ongoing aspect is new to a lot of people, but I don't know what would be new about the history, itself. |
