Saturday, March 10, 2012

Soledad crashin' the CNN clown car


Tammy Bruce explains how miss thang Soledad over at CNN crashes their clown car in a flaming heap of lies and bias when (from Hotair) they talked to Joel Pollak describing 30 year old Bamster clip.  (hey MEDIA, WHY was this clip HIDDEN in the 2008 election?!)  In the clip, Bambam hugs his favorite professor and fully recommends other students at Harvard listen and embrace racist views which Derrick Bell holds...

Bambam-the-teach even had his students READ up on Mr. Bell's crackpot theories later...

Interestingly, Wikipedia entry from July explained "critical race theory": archived from last July 2011:

"Critical Race Theory (CRT) is an intellectual and politically committed movement in American legal scholarship that studies race, racism and power. Originating in American law schools, critical race theory has made its way into ethnic studies, political science and education, and into a range of scholarly movements outside the US.[1]

Although no set of canonical doctrines or methodologies defines CRT, the movement is loosely unified by two common areas of inquiry. First, CRT has analyzed the way in which white supremacy and racial power are reproduced over time, and in particular, the role that law plays in this process. Second, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and more broadly, the possibility of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination.[2]

Appearing in US law schools in the mid- to late 1980s, Critical Race Theory inherited many of its political and intellectual commitments from civil rights scholarship and Critical Legal Studies, even as the movement departed significantly from both. Scholars like Derrick Bell applauded the focus of civil rights scholarship on race, but were deeply critical of civil rights scholars' commitment to colorblindness and their focus on intentional discrimination, rather than a broader focus on the conditions of racial inequality.[3] Likewise, scholars like Patricia Williams, KimberlĂ© Williams Crenshaw and Mari Matsuda embraced the focus on the reproduction of hierarchy in Critical Legal Studies, but criticized CLS scholars for failing to focus on racial domination and on the particular sources of racial oppression.[4] "

So Joel Pollak was RIGHT and Soledad O'Brien was WRONG... what is interesting, is THEN, RIGHT when the shite hit the fan with Soledad's clown crash, the CRT wikipedia entry CHANGED to something ELSE on 8-Mar-2012! (I saw it and kept a screenshot which I'll post later)  Someone REMOVED the phrase "white supremacy" and re-wrote the wikipedia entry.  The following day 9-Mar-2012: it was put back to its ORIGINAL content.  Here is what one of the wikipedia editor's has to say about these edits:

"What has gone on here over the last day or two is really troubling. This page was established long before the mash up on CNN and now it's being edited to reflect the sterile, innocuous definition that Soledad O'Brien posited. Long before CNN's piece, CRT was understood here to be an examination of how the US legal system reinforces "white supremacy" and that was clearly documented by the scholarly writings of Cornell West (Harvard/Yale & others) and Adrienne Dixson (Ohio State). That phrase may not sit well with some, but there's no logical argument for changing it. The "white supremacy" foundation of CRT was posited by SUPPORTERS of the theory long before it became a political issue, and now history is being revised to lessen the damage to the President's and O'Brien's reputations. This can't be allowed to stand, or Wiki will just be turned into another blog. Clearly, the article should include a mention of its assumption of white supremacy being reinforced by the America legal system and the best way to do that is to go back to version of the article of yesterday morning. Phocion1 (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that "white supremacy" is a loaded phrase with two different meanings. The one I believe that's used by the CRT people means whites have a higher level of control and privilege. The other, more common meaning, and one that people react viscerally to, is that of the "White Power" and KKK crowd. That's what the Breitbart crowd are seizing on and are exploiting. There needs to be a replacement of, or fleshing out of, that hot-button phrase in the entry to clarify what the CRT advocates mean. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

But, it's their phrase. Dixson's book came out in '06. There may have been a couple interpretations of "white supremacy" 20-30 years ago, but Dixson was characterizing the theory this way 5-6 years ago. Having read a great deal of social theory, I'm sure their books have whole chapters discussing how they define white supremacy. But, that's not a reason to keep the term out of the article. It's controversial, probably intentionally so given Dixson's publishing date. So, let's have the conversation they want us to have. Leave it in the article, allow it draw further contributions/context and we're all better off for having a fuller understanding. We can't sit on someone's stated views because we're not sure we understand them correctly...that's censorship. Phocion1 (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
no, that's not "censorship". we owe the readers an article that easily places the concept of the article in appropriate context (as far as we can, using existing reliable sources]]. Deliberately leaving confusing jargon is inappropriate. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Censorship might be a bit harsh given the forum...I'll give you that. But, I was trying to be polite by allowing for "other interpretations" of the phrase "white supremacist". The simple facts are that practitioners/scholars/theorists SUPPORTIVE of CRT are using the phrase in published material and in interviews. They are the ones introducing what you call jargon into the discussion, not their detractors.So, if you want to alter the article from where it stood for years...including yesterday at this time...the burden should be on you to prove that they mean anything OTHER than the generally accepted concept/definition of white supremacist. What else did they mean? Phocion1 (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This is my first exposure to this sort of edit warring on Wikipedia and I am horrified. I will no longer be able to trust any entry on here that has a political context. I suspect many, many thousands of others will now come to the same conclusion. I have been an adamant defender of Wikipedia even at the public school but now I will fall silent. I will also stop donating. The facts in this case are simple. The article here on Wikipedia was more or less stable until a media event spawned a political revision"


No comments:

Post a Comment