Mediaboss Marketing

Mr. James Mageaus June 28 letter to the editor titled Any teacher teaching CRT should be fired contains a number of errors about critical race theory and American history. CRT has nothing to do with promoting the use of gender-neutral pronouns nor does it seek to dissuade the recognizable differences in gender. Students, whether in a public school, university, or law school, are not being forced to take CRT training and made to believe that they are oppressors because they are white. The struggle for equality and civil rights for African Americans did not end when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law. Despite this laws success in hastening the end of Jim Crow, the discrimination the Civil Rights Act sought to address was too deeply embedded in the fabric of American society to be eradicated as thoroughly as Mr. Mageau seems to think it was. Its true that the 14th Amendment was to be the means to guarantee certain protections to all people. However, the Southern states found devious ways to subvert the 14th Amendment and thereby deny those protections to African Americans before the ink used to sign it was dry.

Mr. Mageau also cites Dr. Swain as evidence to support his false assertion that CRT is, among other things, a Marxist organization. Since he did not present a link to a source for Dr. Swain, one must surmise he is citing her comments from an interview found in The Epoch Times. This publication is affiliated with the secretive and relatively obscure Chinese spiritual movement Falun Gong that became, with the support of Donald Trump, a leading purveyor of right-wing misinformation, according to the New York Times.

Misconceptions and dubious claims such as these have fueled a culture war against CRT. To ensure it was not being taught, the Nevada Family Alliance recommended that teachers be fitted with body cameras while instructing their classes. In school districts across the nation, including in South Kingstown and in Westerly, citizens have filed hundreds of harassing requests for records and materials to prove their presupposition that CRT is being taught to children. School board members who either support CRT or who are seen as not being sufficiently opposed to it have been the subject of recall petitions and demonstrations. In some states raucous crowds of people, some from out of district, have disrupted school board meetings to protest the supposed teaching of CRT. In some cases, people have become so aggressive that police have had to escort board members to their cars when they have left a meeting that included CRT on the agenda. According to an NBC News analysis, there are now at least 165 local and national groups that are trying to disrupt or block lessons on race.

This last detail is especially important, since it points to how CRT has been made into a catchall that includes anything having to do with race or racism. This was made clear by an article about Mr. Robert Chiaradio in the June 24 edition of The Westerly Sun. In this article, Mr. Chiaradio states that he was asking for textbooks and reference materials; all slides and materials from inherent bias training sessions for teachers and staff; and any correspondence from the superintendent, assistant superintendent, and three teachers, mentioning phrases such as race, bias, systemic racism, white privilege, black and brown people, Black Lives Matter, the 1619 Project or George Floyd.

The goal of this nationwide tactic was also made clear recently on the MSNBC show The Reid Out hosted by Joy Reid. On June 23, one of her guests was critical race theory opponent Christopher Rufo. Toward the end of the discussion that evening, Reid quoted Rufo as having said, We have successfully frozen their brand, critical race theory, into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all the various cultural insanities under that brand category. The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think critical race theory. We have decodified the term and we will recodify to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.

Whether at a place of higher learning like West Point with a course on CRT, or a high school with a discussion on Black Lives Matter, or an elementary school with a project on black and brown people, what is there about studying race and its history in this country that brings up such a variety of strong negative reactions from some people?

David Madden

Westerly

See more here:
Letter: CRT obsession is a tactic in the culture wars - The Westerly Sun

Gareth Southgate, England manager and perhaps one of the most likeable men in the British Isles, is feared to be a tool of deep Woke, a Financial Times op-ed claimed on Monday. It seems a consortium of Conservative supporters believe some conspiracy is afoot, and Southgate is a mere pawn to woke-ify the nation. All of which prompts a question: has everyone lost their minds?

Woke is already a rather tricky word. To some it simply indicates an awareness of societal injustice; a term that guides us to a fairer world. To others, wokeness refers to a cultural climate in which we must follow rigid orthodoxies in thought and opinion. And any attempts to deviate from those orthodoxies may see you condemned from the altar of public opinion.

So where does Southgate fit into all of this? He has been roundly praised for his paean to progressive patriotism (an open letter titled Dear England published prior to the Euros), and for his endorsement of players taking a knee prior to kick-off in protest of racism. Of course if he really is a tool of deep Woke this cannot be a function of Southgates inherent decency, but rather it must be a part of a secretive and insidious plot (exactly what the aim of this plot might be is, as of yet, unclear).

Casually making such ludicrous assertions in respected newspapers is probably a sign that everyone needs to have a lie-down. We must have finally reached the apex of the culture wars. The discourse is saturated and no one can think straight. The term woke has lost all meaning and will soon lose all potency.

Not so fast. Though it is easy and encouraged to direct ridicule at anyone who believes Southgate to be a propagator of deep Woke (whatever it is supposed to mean), wokeness and all of its accoutrements may have a deeper hold on democracy than we assume. In fact, it may be the biggest dividing line between voters from here on in. At least thats what one veteran pollster reckons.

Step into the ring Frank Luntz, an American pundit and political language consultant who advised the Republican party over the course of nearly three decades. Luntzs repertoire includes advocating for the use of the term climate change in place of global warming (it sounds less frightening he says), and the renaming of the estate tax to the much more evocative death tax.

Luntz has since renounced his Republican identity, and has come to the UK to warn it of its fate: Britain is heading in the same political direction as the deeply divided United States, and is in desperate need of course correcting. In fact, Britain could descend into a full-throttle US culture war in no time at all. And wokeism may have no small role to play.

In research conducted with the Centre for Policy Studies, Luntz found that wokeism was among voters major concerns (more so than sexism or populism). And via focus groups and several polls he concluded that voters believed woke versus non-woke to be a more significant social divide than young versus old or men versus women.

It is certainly noteworthy, but we would be wise to maintain some scepticism that the UK is about to experience a seismic American-style political reckoning. The UK and the US are not the same place. And they often most of the time, in fact wildly misunderstand each other, assuming greater commonality thanks to a shared language and a foggy notion of a special relationship. Only a cursory glance at the culture shock both the British and Americans experienced over Meghan Markle is evidence enough of this. Attempts to view the UK (or Ireland) through an American lens will fall short.

So it seems unlikely that we are about to import the USs political culture to the UK or the EU wholesale. But we would be wrong to dismiss culture wars long bubbling under the surface as a frivolous concern. The furore over whether Rule Britannia would be sung at the proms; the ongoing rows over statues erected to imperfect historical figures; and the establishment of GB news, a broadcaster that appears to take its editorial cues from the likes of Fox rather than the BBC, are all indicative of this culture war gathering in speed and momentum.

And the problem here is simple to diagnose but difficult to solve. It suits the short-term electoral interests of certain parties to stoke these flames and capitalise on an apparent anxiety voters share over wokeness. If it really is set to be a significant (if not the most significant) political division in coming years, then politicians will want to stake their claim to the right side of the debate.

That may well be antithetical to the curation of a moderate, centrist and healthy society. But it may soon become a quick ticket into office.

Visit link:
Finn McRedmond: UK culture war gaining speed and momentum - The Irish Times

Crikey is this week publishing a series of stories on Dark Emu and its much-lauded author Bruce Pascoe, in light of the recent critical examination of Pascoes thesis by anthropologist Peter Sutton and archaeologist Dr Keryn Walshe.

Through the publication of Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate, Sutton and Walshe have effectively blown the whistle on Pascoes work. Given how influential Dark Emu has become in recasting Australias history, this forensic unmasking represents an important moment.

In tackling this topic, Crikey is aware of how caught up Dark Emu has been in the tiresome culture wars that dominate the public discourse. That makes it a fraught exercise.

There is a good argument that the culture wars are really between white people playing their own game of identity politics: the conservatives versus the progressives is getting as old as the Hatfields and the McCoys and about as useful to the rest of us.

In the middle are the people who are, rightly, fed up that they cant raise a question about a prevailing ideology without getting their heads blown off.

Journalist and author Stan Grant, one of Australias sharpest observers of Indigenous affairs, puts it this way: It is really interesting what this whole story reveals about us. It is a real culture war issue. And I just cant stand either side of the culture wars.

Human rights lawyer Dr Hannah McGlade told Crikey: We are not left or right in this debate. We are Indigenous people. This is about our culture, identity and human rights.

The veteran Tasmanian Indigenous leader Michael Mansell has pointed the finger at the failure of journalists to ask questions that might not accord with their progressive view of the world.

The Sutton and Walshe critique was released with a careful media strategy aimed at avoiding the work being framed as a shot in the culture wars. The book was unveiled in the Nine mastheads rather than News Corp (which might have brought the book larger readership). The journalist who wrote the Nine feature, Stuart Rintoul, is an experienced hand with no barrow to push.

The real concern especially for the Indigenous people Crikey has spoken to is ultimately about cultural appropriation: that a white take on history, such as that Pascoe is accused of propagating in Dark Emu, insults Indigenous Australia and passes the wrong information to Indigenous kids about their peoples achievements.

This appraisal needs to be set against white Australias need for a myth as a salve for its guilt about the colonial invasion of Indigenous Australia. That is what Dark Emu offers: a description of a peoples achievements that white people can relate to and a way to atone for it.

There is an ancillary debate, which the Sutton/Walshe book has inadvertently reignited that about Bruce Pascoes claimed Indigenous identity. The topic is usually avoided in polite company. It is seen as off-limits to question someones bona fides when they say they are trying to piece together their past.

At the same time, though, the identity question matters more and more to the integrity of Indigenous Australia. As Crikey has become aware, there is a heated debate about Pascoes identity among Indigenous people because false claims are, in the words of one person Crikey has spoken to, contributing to the breakdown of Indigenous identity.

Bruce Pascoe has accused his opponents of using questions over his identity to discredit Dark Emu. Yet the author himself insists that he be known as an Indigenous man, repeatedly claiming links to three separate groups the Bunerong, Tasmanian and the Yuin despite two of these groups outright denying his claim, and the third claim now being subject to serious dispute, as we reveal in our series.

At its most serious, the Pascoe story is potentially an indictment of Australias cultural and arts organisations. The University of Melbourne has its own questions to answer over the appointment of Pascoe to a professorship. It also raises genuine questions for the so-called progressive media, which has largely vacated the space when it comes to any scepticism of the Pascoe enterprise. Sutton and Walshe have themselves pointed to the failure of journalists to go to the primary Indigenous and academic sources of knowledge.

In so doing, it has been left to the lefts bogeyman, News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt, to make the most telling points on Pascoe and Dark Emu.

There are two vital voices missing from the debate. One is the author, who has not responded to our requests for comment. The other is influential academic Professor Marcia Langton, who has been one of Pascoes strongest supporters. Langton has described Dark Emu as the most important book on Australia which should be read by every Australian.

Langton is also the natural foil to the anthropologist Sutton. She graduated with honours in anthropology from the ANU in the 1980s and gained a PhD for her work on Aboriginal society in the Cape York Peninsula. Like Sutton, she is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia. Langton, however, has declined our requests for comment.

Link:
To understand Bruce Pascoe, we must go beyond the culture war - Crikey

When progressives talk about the culture war, they tend to place themselves in a passive role.

It's conservatives who are the aggressors, they claim, with Republicans driving "asymmetric polarization" while being cheered on by a right-wing media complex that cynically increases its own profits by encouraging a relentless march toward outright authoritarianism. And all of it is made possible by thebigotry racism, sexism, nativism, xenophobia, homophobia, and transphobia of the Republican rank-and-file, for whom cruelty is the entire point. Faced with this furious onslaught of anti-democratic rage, progressives merely insist on standing their ground, defending the rights of the oppressed against their historic and present-day oppressors.

As with most self-serving political narratives, there is considerable truth to this story. On some issues, Republicans have indeed moved further right. Donald Trump really did appeal to and activate dormant (or barely concealed) prejudices among some GOP voters. His lies especially those wrapped up with the 2020 election have been extraordinarily damaging to American democracy, far surpassing anything we've so far seen on the left.

Yet that doesn't mean progressives have been merely defensive in the culture wars. On the contrary, as a series of charts recently compiled by center-left political commentator Kevin Drum show, progressives have been aggressors, moving left further and faster than conservatives have moved right, on numerous issues wrapped with the country's cultural conflicts over the past two decades. If this is true, or even partly so, it complicates in an illuminating way the story of a unilaterally belligerent right and virtuously defensive left.

Drum'scharts coverpublic opinion over the past 20-25 years on a range of issues. The takeaways are striking. (I have interpreted the data somewhat differently than Drum on a few of the charts, so the conclusions I come to don't always match his.)

On immigration: Republican views have bounced around a lot since 2000, but the overall trajectory has been a shift of about five points in the more conservative (restrictionist) direction. Over that same period, Democrats have shifted about 35 points to the left, in favor of fewer restrictions.

On abortion: Since 2000, there has been a 7-8 percentage point rise in the number of Republicans holding the most extreme pro-life position (abortion should be illegal in all cases). Over the same time period, there has been a 20-point jump in the number of Democrats holding the most extreme pro-choice position (abortion should be legal in all cases). The middle position of "legal under certain conditions," meanwhile, is currently about 30 points more popular among Republicans than the extreme position. Among Democrats, the extreme and the moderate positions have been held by similar numbers for much of the past decade.

On same-sex marriage: Democrats have moved 50 points in the leftward direction since 1997, while Republicans have also moved left, though only by 39 points.

On guns: The GOP has become roughly 10 points more conservative (in favor of gun rights) over the past two decades, whereas Democrats have become about 20 points more liberal (in favor of gun restrictions).

On religion: Between 1998 and 2018, the number of Republicans describing themselves as "very" or "moderately" religious has bounced around between 65 and 75 percent. Democrats, by contrast, held mostly steady above 60 percent until around 2013, when a decline began that has left them at just under 50 percent.

All of these trends culminate in an additional chart Drum shares in a second blog post.

This one, from the Pew Research Center, shows the rise of political polarization from 1994-2017 in a series of graphs. Back in 1994, the two parties overlapped considerably, with the median Democrat and Republican quite close to each other. By 1999, both had slid left, though the median Democrat somewhat more so. Five years later, the median Republican had followed the Democrat leftward. The median Democrat didn't move much between then and 2011, but the median Republicanmoved significantly back to the right. Over the next three years, the parties moved away from each other, but between then and 2017, the median Democrat moved significantly to the left, with the median Republican staying mostly put.

Focusing on the median member of each party misses another dimension of the change over time. In addition to the center of each party pulling away from theother between 2011 and 2017, and the Democrats moving quite sharply left during the last three years covered by the graphs, the overlap between the parties as a whole has significantly diminished. That's the process of partisan polarization in visual form.

But the shape of each party's distribution of voters has also changed. Where both parties once looked like standard normal distributions, with the bulk of voters in the middle of theirrespectiveideological clusters, now the Republican hump (the place on the spectrum where the greatest numbers of voters are found) falls to the right side of its distribution and the Democratic hump falls on its left side. Moreover, the Democratic hump is higher than the Republican one, showing that Democrats now have somewhat greater ideological consensus in support for the left than the Republicans do in support for the right. This difference between the parties was also picked up in a widely discussed scatterplot of the 2016 electorate produced by the Voter Study Group. It showed that Democratic voters were more ideologically clustered than Republican voters.

What does all of this amount to?

For one thing, it shows that American polarization is happening much less asymmetrically than many Democrats would like to believe and that on certain issues wrapped up with the culture war, Democrats have moved further and faster to the left than Republicans have moved to the right. This has been obscured by a greater embrace of brinksmanship on the right, from willingness a decade ago to shut down the government and risk default on the debt to Trump's thoroughly reckless mendacity surrounding the 2020 election.

The GOP has also appeared to lurch especially far to the right because Trump flipped the party's official positions on immigration, trade, and (somewhat less so) foreign policy. But while those changes represented a genuine rightward shift of position for some, the evolution also brought the institutional party into greater alignment with the longstanding views of manyRepublican voters.

Why would progressives deny this reality? Aren't they committed to constantly pushing the moral envelope and furthering justice in our national life? One might think this would lead them to own these ideological shifts and speak of them with pride.

Yet doing so would require that they cede some of the moral high ground in their battles with conservatives, since it would undermine the preferred progressive narrative according to which the right is motivated entirely by bad faith and pure malice. The truth is more complicated. Conservatives genuinely believe themselves to be confronting an ever-changing, ever-expanding list of progressive demands backed up by the left's considerable cultural and political power. The right would be far less politically effective if the left did not continually provide it with evidence to verify the accusation.

This doesn't at all mean the left should surrender in the culture war in the hope that it will deprive the right of fuel for its own crusades. But it does mean that the left's actions in the culture war actually have an effect on what the right does, and vice versa. Too often progressives treat their own cultural commitments as following from self-evident and nonnegotiable moral imperatives rather than strategic political calculations.

Making progressive politics a little bit less about public displays of righteousness might help to encourage Democrats to choose their battles more wisely and soalso somewhat less inclined to pick fights with the right on immigration and abortion and guns and religious issues all at once. Maybe waging one or two culture-war battles while displaying intentional moderation on a few others would do much greater good by giving Democrats a modest electoral boost in a sharply divided country than taking bold moral stands on all of them and confirming the right's most paranoid claims about progressives ambitions.

But even if there is nothing directly to be gained from admitting the left's contribution to the culture war, it should still be encouraged because that contribution is real, and because a politics firmly rooted in reality is preferable to the politics of unpersuasivedenials.

Read the rest here:
The myth of asymmetric polarization - The Week Magazine

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Critical race theory teaches that America and its institutions are systemically racist, and that some races are inherently oppressive and privileged while others are inherently oppressed and victimized (If critical race theory is correct, is America worth defending? Web, June 29). Which Americans will raise their hands and pledge an oath to support and defend our Constitution if theyre taught this document is inherently racist?

The military requires unit cohesion, high morale, good order and discipline and esprit de corps. After all, our troops face severe hardships during training, to say nothing of combat. Will we build or erode these key qualities of a strong fighting force if we teach young troops to see their battle buddies, as well as their sergeants and officers, first and foremost through the lens of race?

I served in Iraq and Afghanistan alongside soldiers of every race and background. We saw each other as fellow Americans and fellow soldiers, prepared to lay down our lives for each other and our country if necessary.

The recent extremism-in-the-ranks training was banal and, like so many other mandatory military trainings, it was a box easily checked. For those conservatives who feel that their views are suppressed, they can take comfort in the ubiquitous TV playing Fox News on a loop at so many military facilities. As for the chief of naval operationss reading list, I assure you that I continue the long tradition shared by many sailors of paying no heed to those recommendations.

Gen. Mark Milleys response at a recent congressional hearing was no doubt born out of a keen understanding that our military has many pressing issues and every breath wasted on the latest culture war is a distraction.

And that, let us recall, is the central mission of our military. If it ever fails, the consequences are not just, say, shareholder losses or more unemployable college graduates, but the eclipse of America by adversaries such as Communist China. Those are the stakes. Our military should stick to real wars, not culture wars.

BRIAN GOLDENFELD

Oak Park, Calif.

Read the original:
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Military should stay out of culture wars - Washington Times